mind, taking initiatives, investment behaviour, beer with lunch, a snooker table or a computer multi-functionality of resources, and variety club. More importantly, they find themselves in an in resources. environment which enhances quality of life owing Peer support/befriending to increased social involvement, with the potential of reducing social isolation at the same time. The Befriending schemes, where an individual authors recommend that local authorities and befriender provides social support, have been voluntary organisations should offer appropriate shown to have a modest effect on depression facilities and activities for older men, which in a range of population groups, but the benefit support them to lead socially-integrated and of such schemes for individuals experiencing independent lives within the community (Davidson isolation or loneliness in particular circumstances et al. 2003). is unclear. Again, it would depend on assessing the individual’s or group’s needs. Support groups and discussion sessions also Case study: “Friendship lunches”, appear to be beneficial for specific populations, North Yorkshire for example people who are bereaved or have There lies an opportunity for public venues a chronic condition. Findlay (2003) found that (e.g. restaurants, bookstores, sports venues) support groups are only effective for people who to leverage a meal or other leisure occasions have the social skills to participate, and where to help people build relationships in their local they were sustained for at least five months. In another study, the researchers found that communities to address loneliness. A pub in participants attending a particular community North Yorkshire, for example, has been hosting centre became socialised as peer supporters “friendship lunches” since February 2015 – without following any formal system and it marketing itself as “an opportunity for locals seemed to work quite well. to come together for good food and good Community and activity-based company”. The initiative was well received by interventions local consumers and it was quickly rolled out to Although other interventions can be “community- another six different communities. (Source: Mintel) based”, many researchers seem to conflate community-based interventions with activities that involve different members of a local community. Pitkala and others (2009) identified several factors These include community navigator services, which contribute to the effectiveness of group- where navigators act as a link between hard- based interventions such as lunch clubs. These to-reach individuals and local services. These include ensuring that there is some homogeneity “gatekeeper” programmes appear to have been among the group participants and that there are successful in the US at identifying and referring shared experiences and interests. on socially-isolated older people who have In addition, within the community setting, social not routinely come to the attention of services policy makers should analyse existing community (Findlay 2003). support resources and plan actions to meet the In their research on interventions for older people, needs of community support, such as promoting Davidson and colleagues (2003) suggested action to encourage contact between neighbours that policy changes are needed to make day and developing activities that increase the centres, lunch clubs and other clubs more social network and facilitate bonding between congenial for older men so that they do not community members (Hombrados-Mendieta feel they are “yielding up” their individuality, or et al. 2013). admitting some sort of “defeat” by attending. For example, these clubs might offer wine and Interventions 26