SRDR+

1. Review ID

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


	Galbraith 2015

2. Review title


	Intergenerational Programs for Persons With Dementia: A Scoping Review

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


	We sought to examine the characteristics, goals, and outcomes of intergenerational programs for persons with dementia and children or youth.

8. Number of databases searched


	25; 16 social science databases, 7 medical databases, and 2 gray literature databases.

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


	AgeLine, ASSIA; 1987), Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC (1966), Project MUSE, ProQuest Social Science Journals, PsycINFO (1806), PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts (1952), Social Sciences Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts (1979), Social Work Abstracts, The Campbell and the Cochrane Library. AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine, CINAHL, Embase, NICE, Ovid Healthstar , Ovid Medline®, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, CBCA Education and ProQuest Education Journals

10. Date of last search


	February 2014

11. Number of included studies


	27

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	included both People With Dementia and persons under 19 years old.

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	Intergenerational programs. Sources were excluded if their focus was on: (1) programs that were not dementia specific, even if people with dementia or cognitive impairment were included in the sample; (2) intergenerational relationships between family members; or (3) informal programs.

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	Both qualitative and quantitative studies were eligible, as were descriptive articles about intergenerational programs. Peer-reviewed articles not available in English and newspapers were also excluded.

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	None.

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Benefits for younger and older people

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	Barriers to intergenerational programs

19. Number of participants included in the review


	Two studies were specifically around volunteering programs (george and Jarrott studies)

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

(age, ethnicity, SES)

24. Social outcomes reported

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


	Children felt helpful (1). For the older people: an increase in participants’ sense of purpose and usefulness (2) and joy derived from teachign children (1). Increased confidence and self-esteem, and feeling loved (1). A renewed sense of usefulness (2). Decreased anxiety (2), increased positive affect (1). (only extracted the two volunteering programs).

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?

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


	Importantly, although music, arts-based, and narrative programs were most common, the type of activity selected is less important than ensuring that it is meaningful for the participants and occurs in an environment that fosters relationship building and shared growth between participants. The use of intergenerational programming with PWD and children or youth is generally supported by the literature.

39. Review limitations


	The literature we retrieved was highly variable in terms of program design, participants’ characteristics, outcomes reported, and evaluation methods. In the reviewed studies, a variety of methods were used to measure outcomes and evaluate programs. The use of both qualitative and quantitative data made direct comparisons difficult. Samples were small (typically between 10 and 20 PWD) and the PWD were predominantly Caucasian, so generalizability to other cultures and groups is limited. Overall, the aforementioned differences between studies’ methodologies, partnered with a limited amount of research on intergenerational programming with PWD, decreased the comparability of studies and the definitive conclusiveness of research findings here.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	-10

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)?