SRDR+

1. Review ID

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


	Farrell 2009

2. Review title


	Voluntary work for adults with mental health problems: a route to inclusion? A review of the literature

3. Date form completed


	04/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	None declared

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	None declared

7. Aim of review


	This review examined the published literature evaluating the use of voluntary work to promote social inclusion for people with mental health problems.

8. Number of databases searched


	6

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


	AMED, BNI, CINAL (NAHL), EMBASE, King’s Fund (KFND), MEDLINE, PsycInfo

10. Date of last search


	Not provided

11. Number of included studies


	14

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	Volunteers with mental health problems

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	Volunteering to promote social inclusion for people with mental health problems

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	None

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	None

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Mental health outcomes of those volunteering with mental health difficulties

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	How the benefits differ in sub-populations; those with disabilities, and having a mental health problem.

19. Number of participants included in the review


	Not provided

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


	Not provided

21. Included studies countries of publication


	Mainly UK and USA (1 in Canada)

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	1997-2008

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	some populations of older adults, people with physical disabilities, and people with mental health problems.

24. Social outcomes reported


	One review concluded volunteering was beneficial because it provided roles and social ties, which led to improved social integration and wellbeing (4 papers in the US). opportunities for social engagement (1). Built social networks in people with mental health problems (2).

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


	formal volunteering imporved depression score in over 65s (1). volunteering benefits mental health and wellbeing (1). Volunteering in adults with disabilities increased life satisfcation (1). improved confidence, being valued and adding value to the lives of others (1). Empowerment and pride for adolescents with disabilities (1). Built confidence (2), satisfaction (1) and self-esteem (1), empowerment (1) in people with mental health problems.

29. Psychological outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	No beneificial effect on depression in younger age groups (1). improving self-esteem through helping others and valued, meaningful activity (1). 22% of the participants reported that volunteering had had a negative impact on their mental health, largely due to discrimination, stigma, bullying, stress and a lack of knowledge or understanding of colleagues. Support from mental health staff and the volunteer agencies were identified as necessary (1).

30. General outcomes reported

(i.e general health and wellbeing)


	Formal volunteering protected against wellbeing in over 65s (1). ‘volunteering keeps healthy volunteers healthy’ rather than improving health (1 review).

31. General outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant) 


	No beneificial effect on wellbeing in younger age groups (1).

32. Interactions reported

(i.e between each other or demographic variables)


	different settings for volunteering, for example religious or secular, produced different results, as did participants from different cultures (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 evidence appears to suggest that voluntary work generally has a beneficial effect on the mental health of adults, but that this is not the case for all. the evidence indicates that volunteering does not guarantee social inclusion. Voluntary work may be a useful means of improving mental health and promoting social inclusion for people with mental health problems, but there is currently little evidence to support this. Only the United States studies were statistically and methodologically rigorous, yet they were unable to demonstrate an improvement in mental health for working-age adults and did not consider issues arising directly from mental health problems or social exclusion.

39. Review limitations


	It is difficult to generalise to the population in general (of people with disabilities) or draw conclusions because these five studies were all small, mainly qualitative studies with different aims and different disability groups. Three were non-UK studies where differences in culture and policies might affect relevance to the UK and some contained significant methodological flaws. Although many of the other studies reviewed here purported benefits to the volunteer, several lacked academic rigour and contained methodological flaws. The majority of the studies used qualitative methodology which, together with the small number of participants and the small number of studies, means that caution is necessary in extrapolating the findings to the general population.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	-15

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


	None

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

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)?