Campaign to End
Description of campaign
Evidence base of campaign
Aims and objectives
Assessment of campaign
Coalition -organisations, individuals – research- campaigning to combat loneliness
Aim – reduce - effects of loneliness and social isolation
Launched in February 2011 by five charities- now 250 organisations
Funded by Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
Bolton (2012), Windle et al (2011)
Leading organisation and affiliates
Need for campaign
Loneliness–subjective feeling –transient, situational, chronic
Between 2 and 16 times - to die prematurely.
Impact undesirable - individual, community, societal level
Population ageing in UK
Aged over 65 approx. 20%
Campaign aiming to deal with consequences
Impact of loneliness just as damaging as lifelong smoking, alcoholism and more than obesity and inactivity.
Marmot (2010), Victor et al (2012)
Risk factors and triggers
Interpersonal engagement – relation –family, friends,
Life stage events- retirement, bereavement
Wider social structures – poverty, social care, ageism
Social environment – living arrangements, access to transport
Social economic health inequalities – experience and consequences vary – position in society
Gender and age
Ethnic minority-more at risk
Age UK (2012), Valtorta and Hanratty, (2012)
Literature review of evidence-base Literature review of 30 studies by Cattan, (2005)suggest that educational and social activities that target specific groups can alleviate social isolation and loneliness among older people however, befriending and home visits remain unclear Cattan, (2005)
Evidence-base of similar campaign
SOAR Opportunity Fund in the United States supported quality of family, friends and neighbours
Identified impact at 3 levels: Impact on wellbeing,
Influence on policies, regulations, systems and
Leverage in terms of public and private investment
Organisational Research Service for Casey Foundation (2004),
Aims and Objectives of
Focus on reducing effects of loneliness and social isolation
Specific objectives – preventative care and support - promote independence, prevent/delay- deterioration of wellbeing ageing, illness or disability.
Delay need for more costly and intensive services.
No built in measures to demonstrate success
The Bigger Picture
to One schemes
Befriending, Mentoring, Community Navigators
schemes – day centre services
Community Engagement–sport, library, museum
intervention- more effective, no academically robust evidence for it.
Age UK (2010), Windle et al (2011))
Reduce loneliness and isolation
Model appropriate relationships
Not very successful – lack strategy to policy makers, motivation, empowerment to individuals through publicity.
Need to go upstream first then downstream – not both at the same time.
Loneliness from different perspectives Hawkley et al (2010)
Conceptual framework suggested Theory of Change (ToC) – a representation of how and why a complex change process will succeed under specific circumstances. Process and Product.
as a road of your outcomes – how you get where you want to go.
going check to see if you are on track
basis for evaluation
should be: Credible, Achievable, Testable, Supported.
to educate policy makers on loneliness first, then motivate, empower people at working class level before age 65.
Theory of Change
Legibility / readability – appropriate and no educational material but support – physically, mentally, socially
Language used – appropriate –discussions