SRDR+

1. Review ID

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


	Chen 2022

2. Review title


	Productive Aging by Environmental Volunteerism: A Systematic Review

3. Date form completed


	04/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

7. Aim of review


	This review examines the current state of environmental volunteerism for older adults. Our study aimed to identify the types, benefits, motivations, and drawbacks of environmental volunteerism by systematic review and meta-ethnography. It sought to propose older adults’ engagement in pro-environmental activities as a potential model for both productive aging and nature conservation.

8. Number of databases searched


	5

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


	Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Cochrane), CINAHL (EBSCO), and PsycINFO (EBSCO)

10. Date of last search


	8th July 2020

11. Number of included studies


	9

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	mean age ≥60 years,

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	voluntary participation with an intention to improve the outdoor environment and not experienced through paid employment. excluded: activities that do not result in an environmental change or are undertaken in private space

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	original study with either qualitative or quantitative design

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	evaluation of any outcome of environmental volunteerisms regarding participants, except outcomes focusing solely on benefits to the environments

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Types and benefits of volunteerism

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	Motivations of volunteering, and perceived challenges

19. Number of participants included in the review


	328

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


	2 were quantitative studies, 4 were qualitative studies, and 3 were mixed

21. Included studies countries of publication


	2 in Taiwan, 2 in the US, one each from UK, Italy, Mata, and Australia.

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	2011-2020

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	mean age ranged from 65.6 to 75.7

24. Social outcomes reported


	Benefits of greening volunteerism (e.g planting trees, tidying trails): Reduced isolation (1), increased cohesion with a social group (2), increased social interaction (1). Effects of volunteering in recycling: imporoved compassion for others (1). General: increased social connectivity (1).

25. Social outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

26. Physical outcomes reported


	Greening benefits: increased physical activity (2) and percieved health, (1) reduction in laziness (1). Effects of volunteering in recycling: imporved strenght, flexibility, mobility and blood pressure (1 each). PASE, outdoor gardeningb: 68% to 95% PASE, physical work timeb: 2.2 to 7.7 hrs (1). Handgrip strength: 1.5 kg Sit-and-reach test: 1.5 cm Usual gait speed: 0.1 m/s Fast gait speed test: 0.1 m/s Five times sit-to-stand test: −0.7 s Timed up and go test: −0.9 s (1). Blood pressure: −6.4 vs 3.5 mmHg- all significantly increased (1). General: increased physical activity and percied physical health (1).

27. Physical outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	nsignificance in BMI, cholesterol, LDL, TG, blood sugar, CRP, cortisol (1).

28. Psychological outcomes reported


	Greening benefits: Increased positive outlook/affect (2), increased life satisfaction (1), decreased distress (1) and depression (1). Increased self-esteem (2), purposeness/usefulness (2), and motivation (1). Effects of volunteering in recycling: Increased self-compassion, reduced depression, increased happiness (1). PANAS: increased positive affect and decreased negative affect Life satisfaction (11-point): 7.2 to 8.0 (1). SCS, self-compassion (130-point): 1.8 vs −8.0 TGDS, depression (30-point): −1.3 vs 0.4 CHI, happiness (80-point): 4.7 vs −4.8 (1). General: reduction indepression, increase in happiness and optimism (1).

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)

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


	we further revealed that the benefits were consistent for older adults. Despite the wide range of activities, the shared benefits across studies can be classified as physical health, emotional wellbeing, social capital, and personal empowerment. By observing the connection and shared factors across studies, we proposed three core elements as potential sources of benefits: (1) physical activity, (2) social connection, and (3) meaningful purpose (proposing a model). Physical activity helps in physical health and mental stability. Greening, recycling, and most not-specified environmental volunteerisms requires physical activity. Social connection helps overcome loneliness and increases social capital. Meaningful activity empowers retired adults to have a purpose in life, increased self-esteem, and better mental health.

39. Review limitations


	Many confounders may affect both the participation in environmental volunteerism and observed outcomes of the same. Without control for confounders, we may form a misleading association. Only one study for recycling volunteerism had a control group in our review. Most included studies are primarily single group studies without comparison, and all have some degree of bias. For quantitative studies, the main issue is the inevitable confounding bias due to the lack of a control group. For qualitative studies, the main issues are inadequate follow-up and unclear inclusion criteria.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	9

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


	We applied the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized quantitative studies and CASP checklist for qualitative studies.

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)


	Following the ROBINS-I tool, overall risks of bias were serious in all four quantitative studies, mainly because of confounding bias. For qualitative studies, the overall quality assessed by CASP was moderate in two studies, and low in the rest. The main issues were – inadequate follow-up and unclear inclusion criteria.

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

1. Review ID

2. Review title

3. Date form completed

4. Initials of person extracting

5. Review funding source

6. Possible conflicts of interest

7. Aim of review

8. Number of databases searched

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

10. Date of last search

11. Number of included studies

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

14. Exclusion criteria for study type

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures

16. Outcomes studied

17. Primary reported outcomes

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)

19. Number of participants included in the review

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

21. Included studies countries of publication

22. Range of included studies years of publication

23. Review’s population

24. Social outcomes reported

25. Social outcomes not supported

26. Physical outcomes reported

27. Physical outcomes not supported

28. Psychological outcomes reported

29. Psychological outcomes not supported

30. General outcomes reported

31. General outcomes not supported

32. Interactions reported

33. Was a meta-analysis performed?

34. Number of included studies in the meta-analysis

35. Heterogeneity

36. Pooled estimates

37. Confidence intervals (95%)

38. Key conclusions from study authors

39. Review limitations

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating

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

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)

43. Publication bias reported (if applicable)

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)?