Your web browser does not support Javascript, or you have it turned off. Please turn on Javascript or use a Javascript-compatible web browser to take advantage of the full functionality of SRDR Plus.
>
seemless p Browser does not support iframes. Please update your browser to for a better viewing experience.
Home
Blog
Published Projects
Search
Contact
About
Help
Login
Register
Open main menu
Home
Blog
Published Projects
Search
Contact
About
Help
Login
Register
Design Details
Print Data
Extraction form for project: The effect of volunteering on the health and wellbeing of volunteers: an umbrella review
Design Details
1. Review ID
(surname of first author and year first full report of study was published e.g. Smith 2001)
Blais 2017
2. Review title
Examining the Benefits of Intergenerational Volunteering in Long-Term Care: A Review of the Literature
3. Date form completed
04/08/2022
4. Initials of person extracting
BN
5. Review funding source
The authors would like to thank Brock University’s Match of Minds program for providing BScN candidate Stephanie Blais with the funds for the opportunity to work as a research assistant under the supervision of Lynn McCleary, RN, PhD, for the Summer 2016.
6. Possible conflicts of interest
None declared
7. Aim of review
To examine the benefits of intergenerational interactions between youth volunteers and residents of long-term care homes. The review focuses on intergenerational volunteering by high school and postsecondary college and university students.
8. Number of databases searched
3
9. Names of databases searched; date ranges of databases searched
Google scholar, PubMed, and CINAHL
10. Date of last search
Not provided
11. Number of included studies
5
12. Exclusion criteria for participants
(e.g age, comorbidities)
Volunteers were high school or postsecondary students. Older adults resided in a long-term care home (i.e., nursing home, assisted-living facility, or continuing care home).
13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering
(e.g type of volunteering, for a specific organistion/purpose)
Interaction between the student and resident took place primarily at the long-term care homes. Volunteering involved direct contact between the student and the residents. Excluded participants who received a class credit (e.g such as for service learning).
14. Exclusion criteria for study type
published research and journal articles. No further criteria for study type
15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures
No criteria based on outcome.
16. Outcomes studied
(select all that apply)
Psychological
Physical
Social
General
17. Primary reported outcomes
Benefits for volunteers
18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)
Challenges for volunteers and benefits for the older adults residing in the care homes.
19. Number of participants included in the review
Not provided
20. Review’s included study type (% of quant studies)
3 quantitative and 2 qualitative.
21. Included studies countries of publication
three were conducted in the United States and two, in Canada.
22. Range of included studies years of publication
2004-2014
23. Review’s population
(age, ethnicity, SES)
Mostly university students
24. Social outcomes reported
Analysis of the reflective journals revealed many beneficial outcomes for the students including a positive impact on attitudes toward older adults and diminished fear of their own aging (became aware of communication cues, built relationships, reported a positive experience, felt they had devleopoed new friendships (1). the initial motivation for these volunteers was largely self-interest, with the goal of gaining career-related experience. However, students chose to continue to volunteer due to their new-found friendships (1)
25. Social outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
26. Physical outcomes reported
27. Physical outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
28. Psychological outcomes reported
29. Psychological outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
30. General outcomes reported
(i.e general health and wellbeing)
31. General outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
32. Interactions reported
(i.e between each other or demographic variables)
N/A
33. Was a meta-analysis performed?
-- Select response --
Yes
No
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
According to the research reviewed here, volunteering and intergenerational exchange between youth and residents of long-term-care homes is feasible and can result in significant benefits for both youth volunteers and residents. Benefits for students, noted in the current literature, include positive attitudes about aging, understanding the importance of autonomy and dignity of residents, enhanced communication skills, career-related learning, and positive feelings about developing relationships with residents. youth and residents were able to develop reciprocal relationships. The main difference between volunteering and service-learning is mutuality. In service learning, there is an equal emphasis on benefits for students as learners and benefits to the individuals and communities that are served. In volunteering, the focus is typically on the service provided and the beneficiary, such as the long-term-care-home resident
39. Review limitations
None discussed
40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating
-18
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?
-- Select response --
Yes
No
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)?
Print Data
seemless p Browser does not support iframes. Please update your browser to for a better viewing experience.