Creative Journeys Report 2019

Creative Journeys 29 (i) Relational bonding This tool asks people to name as many people in the group as they can and then answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as to whether they felt connected to the person. In response to this the number of names of others in the home remembered by participants at baseline and follow-up were not normally distributed, and therefore a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used to compare numbers of names remembered at each time point. 15 residents answered this question and the median number of names significantly decreased from baseline ( Md =4.0) to end-point ( Md =3.0): z =-2.087, p =.037. The number of yes answers to ‘do you feel connected to those who were named’ at baseline and end-point were not normally distributed therefore a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used to compare numbers. 15 residents answered at both time points and there was a slight non-significant decrease in median scores from baseline ( Md =3.0) to end-point ( Md =2.0): z =-1.567, p =.117. (ii) Collective bonding Using the scale developed by Aron, Aron and Smollan (1992) and used by Pearce et al. (2016), participants were then asked of the people previously listed on the relational tool to think about the person they felt most connected to and then to rate on a pictorial scale (1-7) which best describes the closeness of that relationship. 16 residents answered this question at both time points. This data was not normally distributed therefore a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used to compare baseline and end-point scores. There was no significant difference between baseline ( Md =5.0) and end-point ( Md =4.0): z =-.144, p =.886. Participants were asked to think about others in the care home in general and to rate the closeness of their relationships overall on a pictorial scale (1-7). This data was non-normally distributed. 16 residents answered this question at both baseline and end-point. Again, there was no significant difference between baseline ( Md =4.0) and end-point ( Md =4.0): z =-1.531, p =.126. There were issues with administering these tools and there were some difficulties experienced by residents in completing them. For example, in the relational bonding measure, residents were often unable to recall names but would describe individuals in detail (e.g. “the one with the big ears” referring to another resident, “the lovely lady that sings with us” referring to an arts facilitator) or explain that they would recognise faces, or would point to residents in the room at the time. At end-point, one resident still couldn’t remember the names of other residents but said that she “developed friendships” and “felt connected to others” and others made comments during the collection of these measures about others in the arts group, such as “I miss them”, “I like people. I felt as though I was amongst friends” , and “it brought you nearer to people”. This raises an important question as to whether remembering a name is the most important indicator of a relationship; these residents clearly felt that they had developed relationships with others even though they couldn’t remember their names. Furthermore, many residents struggled to understand the pictorial scale of the collective bonding measure and in some cases the researchers resorted to asking them to think of it as a scale of 1-7 instead of pictures in order to aid their understanding. These issues encountered with the selected questionnaire measures raise concerns as to their suitability for use with older adults in care home settings. Despite the results from these scales, in the wider study we found evidence that the participatory arts activities promoted collective enjoyment, helped to build a shared