SRDR+

1. Review ID

(surname of first author and year first full report of study was published e.g. Smith 2001)


	Anderson 2014

2. Review title


	The Benefits Associated With Volunteering Among Seniors: A Critical Review and Recommendations for Future Research

3. Date form completed


	04/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	This research was supported by Grant MOP 97844 from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	None declared

7. Aim of review


	to review critically the evidence on the benefits associated with formal volunteering among older adults, propose a theoretical model of how volunteering may reduce functional limitations and dementia risk, and offer recommendations for future research. To obtain a more comprehensive view (than a reductive meta-analysis like wheeler) of the current state of knowledge on the benefits of volunteering among older adults, making both the common findings and the gaps in our understanding more apparent.

8. Number of databases searched


	4

9. Names of databases searched; date ranges of databases searched


	PsycInfo, Scopus, PubMed, and MedLine

10. Date of last search


	April 2014

11. Number of included studies


	73

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	Because of our focus on preventing functional decline and dementia, studies were included if they involved older adults (defined liberally as age 50⫹), either alone or in direct comparison with younger cohorts; thus, articles that sampled volunteers from across the adult lifespan but did not analyze the results as a function of age were excluded

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

(e.g type of volunteering, for a specific organistion/purpose)


	restricted this review to formal volunteering; “unpaid noncompulsory work; that is, time individuals give without pay to activities performed either through an organization or directly for others outside their own household” (p. 13). Articles focusing on informal volunteering (e.g., care giving, providing social support to friends, family, and neighbors) or on membership in voluntary associations or groups (e.g., the YMCA) were excluded. studies that merged volunteering with other productive activities were excluded

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	This review is limited to peer-reviewed evidence published in English; study results were excluded if provided in technical reports, books, or book chapters. Our fifth criterion required that studies have a nonvolunteering control group; studies that lacked this control were excluded. One important exception to these final two criteria was that we included descriptive studies (both qualitative and quantitative) of the benefits of volunteering. This is the only design type that has been used in qualitative studies on the benefits associated with volunteering in older adults, and we felt it was essential that a comprehensive review of this area include seniors’ views on these benefits, in their own words. The study design types included in this review were descriptive, cross-sectional, prospective cohort, and one randomized control trial.

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	this review focuses on the benefits associated with volunteering and not its potential costs. Studies that examined only demographic differences between older volunteers and nonvolunteers or older adults’ motivations for or barriers to volunteering were excluded. we are interested in whether seniors who volunteer experience benefits regardless of their health and demographic status. For this reason, we include in this review only analyses that controlled for or included in the statistical models demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, education, income) when it was possible for the authors to do so.

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	The comparison of older adults who volunteer to older adults who do not volunteer on one or more outcome measures of interest, controlling for sociodemographic differences between the two groups (especially if prospective).

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	Qualitative data (senior's views of the benefits, in their own words)

19. Number of participants included in the review


	Not provided

20. Review’s included study type (% of quant studies)


	17 descriptive studies (including qual), 14 cross-sectional, 36 prospective cohort

21. Included studies countries of publication


	Mainly western countries (mostly US and Canada)

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	1982-2013

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	Age ranges spanning between 41 to 93

24. Social outcomes reported


	The majority of included studies included these outcomes. A number of cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies, together with the Experience Corps study, have reported positive associations between volunteering and reduced symptoms of depression (cross-sectional: 4, prospective cohort: 15). higher levels and improvements in seniors’ positive affect or happiness (descriptive: 1, prospective: 4, cross-sectional: 5). Association with greater life satisfaction Descriptive: 2, cross sectional: 6, prospective cohort: 2). Association with improvements in self-esteem or a sense of mastery (descriptive: 5, prospective cohort 2). Feeling useful and self fulfilled (1 descriptive), greater resilience (1 cross sectional). Social support/network (meeting people, making friends, sense of community) (descriptive: 7, cross-sectional: 2)

25. Social outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	One cross-sectional study found that that although their participants who volunteered reported less depression than those who did not volunteer, this difference was reversed after controlling for sociodemographic variables, the self-reported amount of physical and other everyday activity in participants’ lives, and other functional markers including subjective health, social support, and life satisfaction. One cross-sectional and one prospective study found no association with happiness. One of each study type found no association with life satisfaction. However, in the prospective study for both happiness and life satisfaction volunteering status was determined by whether participants reported having volunteered within the week prior to assessment (maybe too short a timescale), and follow-up may have been too long (6 years). No association with improvements in self-esteem or a sense of mastery (2 cross sectional studies, 1 prospective cohort). No association with social network (1 of each: descriptive and cross-sectional).

One cross-sectional study found that that although their participants who volunteered reported less depression than those who did not volunteer, this difference was reversed after controlling for sociodemographic variables, the self-reported amount of physical and other everyday activity in participants’ lives, and other functional markers including subjective health, social support, and life satisfaction.
One cross-sectional and one prospective study found no association with happiness. 
One of each study type found no association with life satisfaction. However, in the prospective study for both happiness and life satisfaction volunteering status was determined by whether participants reported having volunteered within the week prior to assessment (maybe too short a timescale), and follow-up may have been too long (6 years). 
No association with improvements in self-esteem or a sense of mastery (2 cross sectional studies, 1 prospective cohort).
No association with social network (1 of each: descriptive and cross-sectional).

26. Physical outcomes reported


	Self-reported general physical health (cross sectional: 2, 2 descriptive, 6 prospective)- improves up to a point of hours spent, then tapers off (5 prospective). Maintenance of functional independence (8 prospective), more so with increased volunteering hours. e.g increased amount of physical activity (3), improved self-reported strenght and objectively measured walking speed (2), less hypertension (1) only in causcasian Ps (1),fewer hip fractures (1). Reduction in mortality (13 prospective), one study found this was only evident only for those who volunteered for otheroriented reasons (e.g., for social connections and for altruistic purposes) and not self-oriented reasons (e.g., to escape one’s troubles, to feel better about oneself). 1 study found volunteering is associated with a 24% (95% CI [16%, 31%]) reduction in mortality risk after adjusting for age, sex, physical health, and 11 other relevant variables.

27. Physical outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	No association with general physical health (2 descriptive), only used a 3-point scale of functioning and days spent ill. Mixed results for grip strength (2). Neither the number of selfreported physician-diagnosed medical conditions (3) nor rates of admission to a nursing home (1) have been found to associate with volunteering. No relation to mortality (2).

28. Psychological outcomes reported


	Self-definition (3 qualitative) Improvement in mood in women but not men (1 prospective).

29. Psychological outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

30. General outcomes reported

(i.e general health and wellbeing)


	Wellbeing (2 prospective) Quality of life (2 descriptive, 2 cross-sectional, 1 prospective) The model: volunteering increases social, physical, and cognitive activity (to varying degrees depending on characteristics of the volunteer placement) which, through biological and psychological mechanisms, leads to improved functioning and ultimately reduces functional decline and dementia.

31. General outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant) 

32. Interactions reported

(i.e between each other or demographic variables)


	measures of the quantity and quality of social support completely mediated the above-mentioned greater life satisfaction among seniors who volunteered compared to seniors who did not volunteer (1). When all entered into an ordinal regression model, hours spent volunteering was significantly predictive of less depressive symptomatology, greater positive affect, and better life satisfaction levels. Altruistic attitudes, on the other hand, were only predictive of greater positive affect levels. These results suggest that the link between seniors’ volunteering and their mental health outcomes is at least partly independent from their prosocial attitudes (1). Greater influence on positive affect and resilience for those with chronic conditions (1). Feeling appreciated/needed aplifies effect on depression (1), life satisfaction (1), psychological wellbeing (2), and qual of life (2). Curvilinear relationship: benefits increase up to a point of hours spent volunteering, then diminish (depression 1, life satisfaction 2, positive affect 1). On average, these papers suggest that the optimal level of volunteering at which to enjoy these psychosocial benefits is approximately 100 annual hr (2 to 3 hr per week). improvements in physical health over time were more than 2.5 times greater among volunteers over the age of 60 than they were in their younger volunteering counterparts (1).

measures of the quantity and quality of social support completely mediated the above-mentioned greater life satisfaction among seniors who volunteered compared to seniors who did not volunteer (1).
When all entered into an ordinal regression model, hours spent volunteering was significantly predictive of less depressive symptomatology, greater positive affect, and better life satisfaction levels. Altruistic attitudes, on the other hand, were only predictive of greater positive affect levels. These results suggest that the link between seniors’ volunteering and their mental health outcomes is at least partly independent from their prosocial attitudes (1).
Greater influence on positive affect and resilience for those with chronic conditions (1).
Feeling appreciated/needed aplifies effect on depression (1), life satisfaction (1), psychological wellbeing (2), and qual of life (2).
Curvilinear relationship: benefits increase up to a point of hours spent volunteering, then diminish (depression 1, life satisfaction 2, positive affect 1). On average, these papers suggest that the optimal level of volunteering at which to enjoy these psychosocial benefits is approximately 100 annual hr (2 to 3 hr per week).
improvements in physical health over time were more than 2.5 times greater among volunteers over the age of 60 than they were in their younger volunteering counterparts (1).

33. Was a meta-analysis performed?

34. Number of included studies in the meta-analysis

35. Heterogeneity

(e.g I squared)

36. Pooled estimates

37. Confidence intervals (95%)

38. Key conclusions from study authors


	The reviewed evidence demonstrates that volunteering among older adults is related to better psychosocial, physical, and cognitive health, as well as better functional performance. The majority of investigations to date have focused on psychosocial outcomes, where reliable associations have been reported between volunteering and amelioration of depressive symptoms, improved life satisfaction, and enhanced social support. Apart from depression, support for psychosocial benefits has come mainly from descriptive and cross-sectional studies. volunteering has most consistently been associated with better overall physical health and fewer functional limitations; these results are supported by respected prospective cohort studies. Moreover, the evidence that volunteering is associated with delayed mortality is strong. Common themes indicate that the protective benefits associated with volunteering are amplified if volunteers feel reciprocity (i.e., their work is appreciated and “matters”), contribute their time for prosocial reasons, and make a moderate but not excessive commitment to volunteering.

The reviewed evidence demonstrates that volunteering among
older adults is related to better psychosocial, physical, and cognitive health, as well as better functional performance. The majority of investigations to date have focused on psychosocial outcomes, where reliable associations have been reported between volunteering and amelioration of depressive symptoms, improved life satisfaction, and enhanced social support. Apart from depression, support for psychosocial benefits has come mainly from descriptive and cross-sectional studies. volunteering has most consistently been associated with better overall physical health and fewer functional limitations; these results are supported by respected prospective cohort studies. Moreover, the evidence that volunteering is associated with delayed mortality is strong. Common themes indicate that the protective benefits associated with volunteering are amplified if volunteers feel reciprocity (i.e., their work is appreciated and “matters”), contribute their time for prosocial reasons, and make a moderate but not excessive commitment to volunteering.

39. Review limitations


	the vast majority of studies employ a single type of measure, be it qualitative, subjective, or objective. More kixed methods studies would be beneficial. Evidence for psychosocial effects mostly comes from descriptive and cross-sectional studies. Much more work is needed to determine (a) whether the benefits associated with volunteering differ between senior and younger volunteers, (b) what individual difference factors moderate changes associated with volunteering, and (c) how social selection and social causation effects interplay across a wide range of outcome measures. Did not investugate the influence of different volunteer roles. Did not compare volunteering to other activities e.g work or church attendance.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	-10

41. Quality appraisal tool used by review (if applicable)


	N/A

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)


	N/A

43. Publication bias reported (if applicable)


	N/A

44. Was correspondence required for further study information?

45. What further correspondence was required, and from whom?

46. What further study information was requested (from whom, what and when)?

47. What correspondence was received (from whom, what and when)?

Extraction form for project: The effect of volunteering on the health and wellbeing of volunteers: an umbrella review

Design Details