SRDR+

1. Review ID

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


	Giradeau 2019

2. Review title


	Intergenerational programs: What can school‑age children and older people expect from them? A systematic review

3. Date form completed


	05/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	This work was supported by the EA-2114 Psychologie des Ages de la Vie (Francois-Rabelais University).

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	None declared

7. Aim of review


	(1) characterize and define the IGPs studied and (2) identify the benefits for school-age children and older people aged 60 years or over.

8. Number of databases searched


	3

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


	PsycINFO, MedLine, and PubMed

10. Date of last search


	between 2005-2015

11. Number of included studies


	11

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	school-age children and older adults (60 years and over). Studies with adults aged over 60, wherever they lived (nursing home, assisted living facilities, at home, etc.) and with children aged 5 to 12 years. Excluded: focused on people only indirectly involved in IGPs (staff, families, etc.).

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	Intergenerational programmes.

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	we included only studies published between January 2005 and January 2015 in order to have a clear overview of the current situation and to identify the benefits of IGPs for the generations today. Studies with different designs (interviews, focus group, experimental research) assessing the benefits of IGPs for children and older adults (needed to look at empiorical application). Book chapters, comments or guest editorials 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 school-aged children and older adults

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	None

19. Number of participants included in the review


	The number of participants in the studies varied considerably, from 7 to 380 children, and 5 to 141 adults. (from 11 to 46 older adults for the studies I'm extracting)

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


	4 quant, 2 qual, 5 mixed

21. Included studies countries of publication


	Seven of the 11 studies were conducted in the USA, three in Japan and one in Israel. (3 US and 1 Israel for the studies I'm extracting)

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	2005-2014 (of the 4 I'm extracting)

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	Children and older adults

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

29. Psychological outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

30. General outcomes reported

(i.e general health and wellbeing)


	Older adults: increased their empowerment score (1), had fewer depressive symptoms and better mental health over the period of the program (1).

31. General outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant) 

32. Interactions reported

(i.e between each other or demographic variables)


	1 study compared two IGPs: traditional IGPs (e.g., playing board games) and a community-service activity. Results indicated that older participants preferred to be engaged in a community-service activity rather than in a traditional activity.

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


	Our systematic review highlights the conditions for an IGP to be effective and beneficial. Based on our results, the most salient factors for the success of the program and the benefits to participants concern first the meaningfulness of the activity, and secondly the knowledge that participants have of each other. First, the meaningfulness of activities seems to be essential, and particularly the sense of being useful. being able to help or provide meaningful assistance to children is a key issue of participating in an IGP.

39. Review limitations


	Indeed, the mixed results observed in this systematic review could be due to the heterogeneity of study methodologies and/or IGPs. Furthermore, more standardized measurements should be provided, particularly for older people without dementia and for school-age children who can be assessed and can respond to questionnaires.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	-6

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)?