SRDR+

1. Review ID

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


	Gualano 2018

2. Review title


	The impact of intergenerational programs on children and older adults: a review

3. Date form completed


	05/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	None declared

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	None.

7. Aim of review


	we aim to carry out a comprehensive review ofthe studies regarding IG programs, in order to summarize the evidence of the effects of these programs on both elders and children. Moreover, we intend to identify the key elements of the IG activities, determining the success of these programs.

8. Number of databases searched


	2

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


	PubMed and Scopu

10. Date of last search


	Not provided

11. Number of included studies


	27

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	needed to involve school or pre-school children. NO exlcusion for elder population, provided they were outside of the family.

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	Intergenerational programmes

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	written in English, Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese. No restriction was performed based on the setting where the program was performed. All types of papers were included, since RCTs were few and did not provide a complete overview of the topic.

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	We considered all papers that report data about IG programs involving children, papers that report the effects of this type of intervention on children or elders, studies that compare different types of programs, and those that analyze the staff’s attitude towards these interventions.

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Outcomes of children and elders

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	None

19. Number of participants included in the review


	Sample size for benefits of older people ranged from 6 to 162.

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


	5 quantitative, 1 qualitative, and 1 mixed methods (of the7 that could be classed as volunteering)

21. Included studies countries of publication


	Seven of the retrieved works for the benefits of older adults were conducted in the USA, 5 in Japan, 2 in Australia, one in the UK.

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	1997-2016

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	Older adults

24. Social outcomes reported


	Significant maintenence of intergenerational interactions (1).

25. Social outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

26. Physical outcomes reported


	Significant imporvement in functional abilities at loing term follow-up (1).

27. Physical outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

28. Psychological outcomes reported


	significant increase in meaningfulness (1), and signifcantly decrease in stress (1).

29. Psychological outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	No significant chnages in depressive symptoms (1).

30. General outcomes reported

(i.e general health and wellbeing)


	Significant increase in self-reported health (1). a significant increase in well-being (2).

31. General outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant) 

32. Interactions reported

(i.e between each other or demographic variables)


	positive effects on staying active, decreased worrying, and perception of successful ageing were greater for the age group from 74 to 85 years (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


	First of all, the settings of implementation of the IG programs appear to be, from our review, extremely variegated, including schools and pre-schools, aged-care facilities. Similarly, the most investigated outcome for older participants was the psychosocial wellbeing. Despite the heterogeneous results and the different evaluation scales employed, most studies agreed regarding the positive effect upon this outcome. The advantages of similar programs persisted throughout a longterm period even for elders.

39. Review limitations


	One limitation of our review is to ascribe to the paucity of RCTs regarding this topic. The majority of the works retrieved were, indeed, nonrandomized clinical trials. Limitred samples make generalsiability difficult. The overall risk of bias was high. Another limitation of our work is related to the language selection of our review (English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian). In fact, additional works potentially significant to our aim, could have been excluded consequently to this criterion.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	9

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


	They evaluated the studies in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook (ROB-2, ROBINS-I). The results of the risk of bias assessment were incorporated into the review.

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)


	Only one study (Low et al., 2015) showed “low” risk of bias, while all the others presented a “high” risk of bias, mostly due to their study design.

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)?