Qualitative research results

Daniel Hind; Gail Mountain; Rebecca Gossage-Worrall; Stephen J Walters; Rosie Duncan; Louise Newbould; Saleema Rex; Carys Jones; Ann Bowling; Mima Cattan; Angela Cairns; Cindy Cooper; Elizabeth Goyder; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Hind D, Mountain G, Gossage-Worrall R, et al. Putting Life in Years (PLINY): a randomised controlled trial and mixed-methods process evaluation of a telephone friendship intervention to improve mental well-being in independently living older people. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Dec. (Public Health Research, No. 2.7.)

Cover of Putting Life in Years (PLINY): a randomised controlled trial and mixed-methods process evaluation of a telephone friendship intervention to improve mental well-being in independently living older people

Putting Life in Years (PLINY): a randomised controlled trial and mixed-methods process evaluation of a telephone friendship intervention to improve mental well-being in independently living older people.

Show details

Contents

< Prev Next >

Appendix 10Qualitative research results

TABLE 35

Baseline demographics by participation in qualitative interviews (all participants allocated to the intervention within the pilot study, n = 35)

Variable	Scoring	Interviewed (n = 19)	Not interviewed (n = 16)	Total (n = 35)
Sex, n (%)	Female	13 (68)	10 (63)	23 (66)
Sex, n (%)	Male	6 (32)	6 (38)	12 (34)
Age (years)	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	83.3 (6.3)	79.9 (4.8)	81.8 (5.8)
	Median (IQR)	81 (78–88)	78 (76–83)	80 (78–85)
	Min. to max.	75 to 95	75 to 91	75 to 95
Ethnicity, n (%)	English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British	19 (100)	15 (94)	34 (97)
Ethnicity, n (%)	Any other white background	0 (0)	1 (6)	1 (3)
Live with anyone?, n (%)^a	Yes	4 (21)	6 (38)	10 (29)
Live with anyone?, n (%)^a	No	15 (79)	10 (63)	25 (71)
Live with spouse/partner, n (%)	Ticked	2 (11)	6 (38)	8 (23)
Live with children, n (%)	Ticked	0 (0)	1 (6)	1 (3)
Live with others, n (%)	Ticked	1 (5)	0 (0)	1 (3)
Education, n (%)
One to four O levels/GCSEs/CSEs	Ticked	0 (0)	2 (13)	2 (6)
Five or more O levels/GCSEs/CSEs	Ticked	1 (5)	2 (13)	3 (9)
Degree	Ticked	2 (11)	3 (19)	5 (14)
Higher degree	Ticked	1 (5)	0 (0)	1 (3)
Professional	Ticked	5 (26)	2 (13)	7 (20)
Other	Ticked	2 (11)	0 (0)	2 (6)
Occupation	Looking after home/family	1 (5)	0 (0)	1 (3)
Occupation	Retired	18 (95)	16 (100)	34 (97)

: CSE, Certificate of Secondary Education; GCSE, General Certificate of Secondary Education; max., maximum; min., minimum; O level, Ordinary level.
a: One interviewed participant said ‘yes’ to ‘live with anyone?’ but did not select any options; one participant who was not interviewed selected two options for ‘live with anyone?’.

TABLE 36

Baseline SF-36 scores by participation in qualitative interviews (all participants allocated to intervention within the pilot study, n = 35)

Variable	Scoring	Interviewed (n = 19)	Not interviewed (n = 16)	Total (n = 35)
Mental health	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	79.2 (15.1)	76.3 (20.4)	77.9 (17.5)
	Median (IQR)	80 (70–90)	80 (67.5–90)	80 (70–90)
	Min. to max.	40 to 100	15 to 100	15 to 100
Physical function	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	64.3 (29.8)	67.2 (25.2)	65.6 (27.4)
	Median (IQR)	75 (35–90)	67.5 (58–88)	70 (55–90)
	Min. to max.	0 to 100	10 to 100	0 to 100
Role – physical	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	68.4 (26.1)	74.6 (24.5)	71.3 (25.2)
	Median (IQR)	56.3 (50.0–100)	78.1 (59.4–100)	75 (50.0–100)
	Min. to max.	25 to 100	25 to 100	25 to 100
Bodily pain	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	62.2 (32.9)	66.9 (24.4)	64.4 (29)
	Median (IQR)	72 (31–100)	67 (41–92)	72 (41–100)
	Min. to max.	0 to 100	32 to 100	0 to 100
General health	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	71.7 (20.9)	66.2 (22.4)	69.2 (21.4)
	Median (IQR)	77 (57–87)	72 (54–79)	72 (57–82)
	Min. to max.	30 to 100	25 to 97	25 to 100
Vitality	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	65.8 (22.8)	58.2 (16.7)	62.3 (20.3)
	Median (IQR)	68.8 (43.8–81.3)	59.4 (50.0–71.9)	68.8 (50.0–75.0)
	Min. to max.	6.3 to 100	25 to 81.3	6.3 to 100
Social function	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	82.2 (26.5)	88.3 (17.4)	85 (22.6)
	Median (IQR)	100 (75.0–100)	93.8 (87.5–100)	100 (75.0–100)
	Min. to max.	25 to 100	37.5 to 100	25 to 100
Role – emotional	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	83.8 (23.3)	94.3 (10.9)	88.6 (19.2)
	Median (IQR)	100 (66.7–100)	100 (91.7–100)	100 (83.3–100)
	Min. to max.	25 to 100	66.7 to 100	25 to 100
Physical component	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	43.5 (11.4)	44.1 (9.6)	43.8 (10.5)
	Median (IQR)	45.4 (33.4–55.0)	43.8 (35.7–52.1)	44.2 (34.0–53.7)
	Min. to max.	22.7 to 57.2	29.6 to 61.2	22.7 to 61.2
Mental component	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	53.9 (8.8)	54.3 (9.7)	54.1 (9.1)
	Median (IQR)	56.1 (49.2–59.3)	56.7 (51.0–60.1)	56.2 (50.9–59.3)
	Min. to max.	25.3 to 63.6	24.3 to 68.1	24.3 to 68.1

: Max., maximum; min., minimum.
: The SF-36 dimensions are scored on a scale from 0 (poor) to 100 (good).

TABLE 37

Other baseline participant-reported outcome scores by participation in qualitative interviews (all participants allocated to intervention within the pilot study, n = 35)

Variable	Scoring	Interviewed (n = 19)	Not interviewed (n = 16)	Total (n = 35)
EQ-5D^a	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	0.71 (0.36)	0.75 (0.2)	0.73 (0.29)
	Median (IQR)	0.85 (0.62–1)	0.8 (0.67–0.83)	0.8 (0.62–1)
	Min. to max.	–0.37 to 1	0.2 to 1	–0.37 to 1
EQ-5D VAS^b	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	77.3 (17.8)	72.4 (19.8)	75.1 (18.6)
	Median (IQR)	80 (67–90)	80 (50–90)	80 (61–90)
	Min. to max.	26 to 96	40 to 100	26 to 100
de Jong Gierveld emotional loneliness score^c	n (%)	18 (94.7)	16 (100)	34 (97.1)
	Mean (SD)	2.3 (2)	1.4 (1.4)	1.9 (1.8)
	Median (IQR)	3 (0–4)	1 (0–3)	1 (0–3)
	Min. to max.	0 to 6	0 to 4	0 to 6
de Jong Gierveld social loneliness score^d	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	1.5 (1.7)	1.3 (1.8)	1.4 (1.7)
	Median (IQR)	1 (0–3)	0 (0–2.5)	1 (0–3)
	Min. to max.	0 to 5	0 to 5	0 to 5
de Jong Gierveld overall loneliness score^e	n (%)	18 (94.7)	16 (100)	34 (97.1)
	Mean (SD)	3.9 (3.3)	2.6 (2.8)	3.3 (3.1)
	Median (IQR)	3 (1–6)	1 (1–5)	2 (1–6)
	Min. to max.	0 to 11	0 to 9	0 to 11
PHQ-9^f	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	2.7 (3.6)	3.2 (3.8)	2.9 (3.6)
	Median (IQR)	1 (0–4)	2.5 (2–4)	2 (0–4)
	Min. to max.	0 to 13	0 to 16	0 to 16
ONS well-being^g	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	7.3 (3)	8.4 (1.3)	7.8 (2.4)
	Median (IQR)	8 (7–9)	8 (8–10)	8 (7–9)
	Min. to max.	0 to 10	6 to 10	0 to 10
GSE^h	n (%)	19 (100)	16 (100)	35 (100)
	Mean (SD)	33.1 (5)	34.3 (4)	33.7 (4.5)
	Median (IQR)	34 (29–38)	35.5 (30–37)	35 (29–38)
	Min. to max.	24 to 40	27 to 39	24 to 40

: Max., maximum; min., minimum; VAS, visual analogue scale.
a: The EQ-5D utility score is measured on a scale from –0.56 to 1.00 (good health).
b: The EQ-5D VAS is measured on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state).
c: The de Jong Gierveld emotional loneliness scale is scored from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more loneliness.
d: The de Jong Gierveld social loneliness scale is scored from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating more loneliness.
e: The de Jong Gierveld overall loneliness scale is scored from 0 to 11, with higher scores indicating more loneliness.
f: The PHQ-9 is measured on a scale from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms.
g: The ONS well-being measure is scored on a 0 to 10 scale with a higher score indicating better well-being.
h: The GSE is scored on a scale from 10 to 40, with higher scores indicating more perceived self-efficacy.
: Models are general linear mixed models with befriending group included as a random effect.

Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2014. This work was produced by Hind et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

Bookshelf ID: NBK264022

Contents

< Prev Next >

PubReader
Print View
Cite this Page
Hind D, Mountain G, Gossage-Worrall R, et al. Putting Life in Years (PLINY): a randomised controlled trial and mixed-methods process evaluation of a telephone friendship intervention to improve mental well-being in independently living older people. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Dec. (Public Health Research, No. 2.7.) Appendix 10, Qualitative research results.
PDF version of this title (15M)

Other titles in this collection

Public Health Research

Recent Activity

Clear Turn Off Turn On

Qualitative research results - Putting Life in Years (PLINY): a randomised contr...
Qualitative research results - Putting Life in Years (PLINY): a randomised controlled trial and mixed-methods process evaluation of a telephone friendship intervention to improve mental well-being in independently living older people

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Bookshelf