4.1 Review

Friendly Visiting Programs for Older People Experiencing Social Isolation: A Realist Review of what Works, for whom, and under what Conditions

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0714980823000302

Keywords

aging; loneliness; social support; social isolation; friendly visiting

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many social interventions have been developed to reduce social isolation among older people. Friendly visiting programs have been commonly used and believed to effectively reconnect isolated older people (≥60 years old). However, there is still a lack of understanding regarding the critical mechanisms and contextual factors that lead to successful outcomes in these programs. This article presents a realist synthesis of seven studies to identify these factors and inform future programs, along with recommendations for further research.
Many social interventions have been developed with the hopes of reducing and preventing social isolation among older people (e.g., recreation, arts-based programs and social prescription). Friendly visiting programs, also known as befriending schemes, have been a mainstay in this area for decades and are largely thought to be effective at reconnecting older people (& GE; 60 years of age) experiencing isolation. Research and evaluations have yet to determine, however, how and why these programs may be most successful, and under what conditions. This article presents the findings of a realist synthesis aimed at identifying the critical mechanisms and contextual factors that lead to successful outcomes in friendly visiting programs. Seven studies are synthesized to inform a friendly visiting program theory accounting for key mechanisms (e.g., provision of informal support) and underlying contexts (e.g., training of volunteers) that can be used to inform future programs. Recommendations for future research are also presented.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available