Outcomes and well‐being part 2: a comparative longitudinal study of two models of homecare delivery and their impact upon the older person self‐reported subjective well‐being. A qualitative follow up study paper

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to follow up on a previous quantitative research project which established that outcome‐focussed care appeared to be associated with an increase in the individuals' subjective well‐being. The purpose of this paper is to establish why the intervention enabled this.

Design/methodology/approach

The study utilised a qualitative approach to gather the subjective experience of the individual service users. The sample consisted of 20 service users, who were subject of two semi‐structured interviews; one interview at the start of the intervention and one at the six month stage. The data were then analysed under core themes raised by the service user in these interviews. The sample was divided into two, with one group receiving the outcome‐focussed model of care and the other group receiving the traditional time focussed care.

Findings

The research established that service users' subjective well‐being improved due to the ability of outcome‐focussed care to provide consistency, flexibility and most importantly the ability of the service user to form a relationship with the homecare workers providing their care.

Practical implications

This paper will assist professionals to understand why outcome‐focus care has a profound impact upon service users' subjective well‐being as opposed to the existing task focussed care.

Originality/value

This and the previous paper provide an insight into how different processes and models of intervention impact upon the subjective well‐being of socially isolated older people.

Citation

Gethin‐Jones, S. (2012), "Outcomes and well‐being part 2: a comparative longitudinal study of two models of homecare delivery and their impact upon the older person self‐reported subjective well‐being. A qualitative follow up study paper", Working with Older People, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 52-60. https://doi.org/10.1108/13663661211231774