Search results

The purpose of this paper is to share the learning concerning how services and the paid carers working in them can support people living with dementia (PLWD) and their unpaid carers to overcome social isolation. This learning comes from the key findings from a Social Return on Investment (SROI) evaluation of a Shared Lives (SL) Day support service, known as TRIO.

SROI is a form of cost-benefit analysis that captures and monetises stakeholder outcomes. The SROI evaluation included a rapid evidence review, an interview study and a questionnaire study. The learning shared is drawn from the interview and questionnaire data that explored the reported outcomes relating to social connection, which included data related to participating in meaningful activities, confidence and independence.

PLWD who accessed the SL Day support service experienced better social connection, a sense of control over their activities (including their social activities) and community presence. A key foundation of these outcomes was the meaningful relationship that developed between the PLWD, their unpaid carer and the paid carer.

This evaluation was a pilot study with a small, albeit representative sample size.

The learning suggests feasible and effective ways for paid carers to support the social connection of PLWD and their unpaid carers with their wider community.

There has been little exploration of how community-based short breaks (like SL Day support) can enhance social connection. The authors drew on a social relational model lens to illustrate how this service type had supported successful outcomes of community and social inclusion for PLWD.

Competitiveness is an individual difference variable that incorporates factors generally associated with the desire to excel in comparison to others and the enjoyment of competition. There is still much debate on whether it is helpful or harmful, which may stem from the scattered ways in which it is studied. Thereby, this study aims to properly synthesize the literature concerning the prevailing correlates, underlying theory and frequent applications of competitiveness and to set forth an outline of domains in need of further research and exploration.

The authors do so by using two methods of analysis on a representative sample of 546 peer-reviewed publications.

The authors find that competitiveness research has and will continue to grow expeditiously, but its complexity and cloudiness have not yet been attenuated.

The study uncovers opportunities for pertinent future research on competitiveness to grow more productively and collaboratively by highlighting salient works and identifying the fragmentations that have led the literature into a state of disarray.