Evaluation of the Good Life Festival: a model for co-produced dementia events
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence & Practice Previous     Next

Evaluation of the Good Life Festival: a model for co-produced dementia events

Beth Luxmoore Quality improvement lead, NHS North West Coast Strategic Clinical Networks, England
Claire Marrett Engagement co-ordinator, Salford Institute for Dementia, University of Salford, Manchester, England
Lesley Calvert Living with dementia, Frederick Road Campus, University of Salford, Manchester, England
Sam Calvert Carer, Frederick Road Campus, University of Salford, Manchester, England
Pat Foy Carer, Frederick Road Campus, University of Salford, Manchester, England
Emma Smith Service director, Salford Adventures, Manchester, England
Elizabeth Collier Lecturer, Mental health, School of Nursing, Midwifery, Social Work and Social Sciences, University of Salford, Manchester, England

This article presents an evaluation of the Good Life Festival, an event co-produced by people living with dementia, Salford University Dementia Institute, Alzheimer’s Society Salford and Salford Adventures. Co-production was a new way of working and was important because people living with dementia said they would like an event organised ‘for people with dementia by people with dementia’. A dementia-friendly evaluation form was circulated at the event. Of the 80 people who attended, 35 completed the evaluation form, all of whom said they enjoyed the event. Of these, 32 (91%) had learned something new and 27 (77%) left feeling more positive about living with dementia. Event attendees and organisers also provided qualitative feedback. Recommendations based on what we learned from planning and running the event are provided, which include having a media strategy in place and to send a follow-up letter to remind people about the information about resources/services advertised on the day.

Mental Health Practice. 21, 6, 26-31. doi: 10.7748/mhp.2018.e1275

Correspondence

e.collier@salford.ac.uk

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Write for us

For information about writing for RCNi journals, contact writeforus@rcni.com

For author guidelines, go to rcni.com/writeforus

Received: 27 June 2017

Accepted: 28 September 2017

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in

OR

Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
Subscribe
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Or