“The Service, I Could Not Do without It…”: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Significance of Meals on Wheels among Service Users and People Who Refer Them to the Service
Table 1
Participant characteristics (n, %).
Meals on Wheels service users
Meals on Wheels referrers
(n = 7)
(n = 21)
Area
South West
4 (57.1)
7 (33.3)
North West
3 (42.9)
3 (14.3)
South East
0 (0.0)
4 (19.0)
East Midlands
0 (0.0)
7 (33.3)
Sex of participants
Male
2 (28.6)
3 (14.3)
Female
5 (71.4)
18 (85.7)
Sex of service users referred
Male
—
11 (52.4)
Female
—
9 (42.9)
Male and female (two service users)
—
1 (4.8)
Relationship of referrer to service user
Niece/nephew
1 (4.8)
Child/stepchild
15 (71.4)
Grandchild
1 (4.8)
Sibling
2 (9.5)
Carer
1 (4.8)
Power of attorney
1 (4.8)
Age of service user (years)a
86.8 (8.8, 76–94)
83.9 (10.3, 57–94)
Duration of MoWs use (months)a
24.6 (20.6, 2.5–60)
22.4 (24.4, 2–102)
Frequency of MoWs use (days per week)a
6.1 (1.6, 3–7)
5.8 (1.8, 1–7)
Type of meal received
Lunch
7 (100.0)
21 (100.0)
Evening meal (in addition to lunch)
3 (42.9)
2 (9.5)
Who set up the service
Referrer
3 (42.9)
20 (95.2)
Social care worker/social care assessment
2 (28.6)
1 (4.8)
Carer
2 (28.6)
0 (0.0)
Reason for setting up the service
Blindness
1 (14.3)
2 (9.6)
Dementia
0 (0.0)
9 (42.9)
Hip fracture/knee replacement
1 (14.3)
1 (4.8)
Following hospital discharge
0 (0.0)
2 (9.6)
Inability to perform everyday activities due to ageing
2 (28.6)
0 (0.0)
Mobility challenges
2 (28.6)
3 (14.3)
Learning disability
0 (0.0)
1 (4.8)
Stroke
1 (14.3)
1 (4.8)
Self-neglect
0 (0.0)
1 (4.8)
Mental health condition
0 (0.0)
1 (4.8)
Service users in receipt of care package/care services
Yes
4 (57.1)
17 (81.0)
No
0 (0.0)
2 (9.5)
Not mentioned
3 (42.9)
2 (9.5)
Who pays for MoWs
Service user
7 (100.0)
20 (95.2)
Referrer
0 (0.0)
1 (4.8)
MoWs, Meals on Wheels. aNumbers represent mean (standard deviation, range).
