Mixed methods tested the acceptability and feasibility of measuring loneliness, mental health and wellbeing in Sheds The collection includes information related to the project and documentation. The collection does not include research data. The project did not ask for explicit consent about uploading / archiving anonymised data. Collecting retrospective consent was not possible.Over 1 million older adults are chronically lonely. Loneliness is associated with a range of negative physical and mental health outcomes. The UK government has invested in social prescribing schemes to tackle loneliness and its associated health impacts. Social prescribing refers people with health problems into community-based support and initiatives to enable group and peer support. Men’s Sheds are one example of a community organisation with involvement in social prescribing and has an overarching aim to tackle loneliness. The Sheds aim to bring people together, to tackle loneliness through ‘making environments’, where men (and women) come together in a social space, doing practical activities (e.g. woodwork). Working closely with Men’s Sheds, the aims of this project were: To understand what is acceptable and feasible in terms of evaluating the mental health, loneliness and social isolation of members of Men’s Sheds (Shedders). To explore different methods of ‘referral’ (e.g., social prescribing) to Sheds. To understand the mechanisms, process and relationships associated with mental health outcomes in Sheds. Methods Mixed methods tested the acceptability and feasibility of measuring loneliness, mental health and wellbeing in Sheds, using acceptability questionnaires, outcome measures (loneliness, mental health and wellbeing) measured at baseline and follow-up. A subset of participants were invited for interview to understand acceptability and explore the role of social prescribing and referral processes into Sheds. Findings 93 Shedders completed the first questionnaire, with 80% (n=74) follow-up completion and 21 Shedders were interviewed. The questionnaire and outcome measures were acceptable and there was an above 90% completion response to all outcome measures. Often joining a Shed was associated with significant changes to personal circumstances (e.g., bereavement, retirement, medical diagnosis) and the Shed provided space for a mutual exchange of skills and support, with valued male company. There were some positive experiences of social prescribing in Sheds, referrals worked well when there were established relationships and Shed-specific approach. Concerns were raised around the themes of ‘responsibility’, ‘we care but we’re not carers’ and ‘I don’t want it to destroy our Shed’. Suggestions for social prescribing in Sheds were provided. Conclusion Men’s Sheds create a unique space for men (and women) to support and share both skills and personal experiences in a shoulder-to-shoulder approach. There are mutual aims between social prescribing and Sheds to reduce loneliness and social isolation. There have been some good practice examples of social prescribing in Sheds, but many concerns exist and further evaluation is needed to enable a collaborative and community-focused relationship in the future.

Mixed methods tested the acceptability and feasibility of measuring loneliness, mental health and wellbeing in Sheds, using acceptability questionnaires, outcome measures (loneliness, mental health and wellbeing) measured at baseline and follow-up. A subset of participants were invited for interview to understand acceptability and explore the role of social prescribing and referral processes into Sheds.