Your web browser does not support Javascript, or you have it turned off. Please turn on Javascript or use a Javascript-compatible web browser to take advantage of the full functionality of SRDR Plus.
>
seemless p Browser does not support iframes. Please update your browser to for a better viewing experience.
Home
Blog
Published Projects
Search
Contact
About
Help
Login
Register
Open main menu
Home
Blog
Published Projects
Search
Contact
About
Help
Login
Register
Design Details
Print Data
Extraction form for project: The effect of volunteering on the health and wellbeing of volunteers: an umbrella review
Design Details
1. Review ID
(surname of first author and year first full report of study was published e.g. Smith 2001)
Jenkinson 2013
2. Review title
Is volunteering a public health intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the health and survival of volunteers
3. Date form completed
08/08/2022
4. Initials of person extracting
BN
5. Review funding source
This systematic review presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for the South West Peninsula. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
6. Possible conflicts of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
7. Aim of review
to examine the effect of formal volunteering on volunteers’ physical and mental health and survival, and to explore the influence of volunteering type and intensity on health outcomes. The primary aim was to update previous reviews by examining the impact of ‘formal’ volunteering on volunteers’ physical and mental health compared with those individuals who do not volunteer. Secondary aims explored the influence of volunteering type (activity, setting) and intensity on the health benefits observed.
8. Number of databases searched
12
9. Names of databases searched; date ranges of databases searched
Medline/OVID SP (1950–Present), and adapted for the Cochrane Database (Issue 1, 2013), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (Issue 1, 2013), Embase/OVID SP (1980–2013), PsycINFO/OVIDSP (1987– 2013), CINAHL (1981–2013), ERIC (1966–2013), HMIC (1983–2013), Social Science Citation Index (1972–2013), ASSIA (1987–2013), Social Care Online (1980–2013) and Social Policy and Practice (1981–2013).
10. Date of last search
January 2013
11. Number of included studies
40
12. Exclusion criteria for participants
(e.g age, comorbidities)
adults aged 16 and above.
13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering
(e.g type of volunteering, for a specific organistion/purpose)
The UN definition of volunteering was adopted; formal, sustained, regular (a minimum of one hour a month on at least two occasions). Volunteering was excluded if: a family caring role, spontaneous, unplanned, overseas (e.g. Voluntary Services Overseas or voluntary ‘working’ holidays) or one-off events; the comparator was ‘low level’ volunteering (i.e. less than one hour on two occasions per month).
14. Exclusion criteria for study type
Studies were included if they compared the effects of volunteering (with no volunteering) across time. only experimental (randomised and non-randomised controlled trials) and cohort studies were included.
15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures
physical and/or mental health of adults, Outcome had to be reported on the participant level. could be self-reported or extracted from routine records.
16. Outcomes studied
(select all that apply)
Psychological
Physical
Social
General
17. Primary reported outcomes
The effect of volunteering on physical and mental health of volunteers
18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)
The influence of volunteering type and intensity as moderators of the effects of volunteering.
19. Number of participants included in the review
In the final analyses, there were 308 participants from the five RCTs and 307 participants from the four non-RCTs. Most cohort studies recruited large samples of community-dwelling adults; only six papers reported sample sizes of less than 1000.
20. Review’s included study type (% of quant studies)
100% quant: five randomised controlled trials (RCTs, seven papers); four non-RCTs; and 17 cohort studies (29 papers).
21. Included studies countries of publication
All studies were based in the USA and recruited people aged 50 years or over except one Israeli study involving people aged between 19–60 years. Most cohort studies were based in North America, with the remainder located in Israel, Germany, England, and a European collabroation.
22. Range of included studies years of publication
No information.
23. Review’s population
(age, ethnicity, SES)
All recruited Ps over 50 years apart from once which recruited people aged between 19-60. The study populations were predominantly female. The frequency of volunteering varied from 30 minutes to 15 hours a week. Same applied to cohort studies; most were of volunteers aged 50 plus.
24. Social outcomes reported
25. Social outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
26. Physical outcomes reported
Volunteering was significantly associated with increased physical activity, strength, and walking (1 trial each).
27. Physical outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
No significant effects were found for the number of falls in the previous year or cane use (1 trial each). inconclusive evidence for effect on functional abilities, partially due to the way volunteering was measured (3 cohort studies). No association with frailty (1) or chronic conditions (1).
28. Psychological outcomes reported
Volunteering was significantly associated with empowerment and decreased stress (1 trial each). Irrespective of how it was measured, volunteering was associated with reduced levels of depression (4 cohort studies). Of these, it was difficult to synthesise clear messages as the way volunteering was modelled (status, intensity, consistency etc.) varied considerably. Improved life satisfaction (4 cohorts) with follow-ups between 3-25 years. Volunteering improved self-efficacy (1 cohort)
29. Psychological outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
3 RCTs found no between-group differences in depression. one RCT and two non-RCTs found no significant differences in self-esteem. No significant effect on purpose in life (2). No significant effects were found for sense of usefulness and loneliness (1 trial each). No reduction in depression (2 cohort studies). No effect on life satisfaction (1 cohort). No impact on happiness (1 cohort).
30. General outcomes reported
(i.e general health and wellbeing)
Only outcomes relating to depression, self-rated health, self-esteem and cognitive function were reported by more than one trial. Volunteering was significantly associated with increased wellbeing (1 RCT, 3 cohorts of between 10-29 year follow-ups). Improved quality of life (2 cohorts), but only if volunteers felt their contribution was appreciated. statistically significant associations between at least one measure of volunteering status or intensity (e.g. frequency, hours spent, number of organisations supported) and mortality (4 cohort studies), most follow-ups ranging from 4–8 years; only one study followed participants for 25 years. After adjusting for important potential socio-demographic and health-related confounders, volunteers had a significantly lower risk of mortality (risk ratio: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.90; I2 test: p = 0.65) compared to non-volunteers (5 cohort studies with follow-ups ranging from 4-7 years). Higher levels of self-rated health (2 cohort studies).
31. General outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
Vote counting did not find any consistent, significant health benefits arising through volunteering. One RCT found no difference in self-rated health. No association of mortality with volunteering (3 cohort studies). no benefits of self-rated health (1), effects only for environmental volunteering (1).
32. Interactions reported
(i.e between each other or demographic variables)
benefits on self-rated health and physical activity were associated with environmental volunteering rather than civic volunteering or no volunteering (1). Benefits of volunteering for life satisfaction and depression limited to older volunteers (1 cohort each), or sustained rather than intermittent volunteering (1 cohort each). Inconsistent findings regarding the intensity of volunteering and the effect on depression; no effect of intensity (1), benefits only associated with between 1-10 hours per month (1).
33. Was a meta-analysis performed?
-- Select response --
Yes
No
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
Included RCTs found hetergeneous findings, with benefits reported for some elements of physical activity and cognitive function. No significant effects were observed for depression, self-rated health or self-esteem. However, all studies recruited small samples that were likely to be underpowered to detect important between-group differences, and this was exacerbated by sample attrition. Most cohort studies recruited large samples with lengthy follow-ups, thus being at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis of 5 studies identified a 22% reduction (CI: 10% to 34%) in mortality among volunteers compared to non-volunteers. Vote counting failed to identify any consistent beneficial effects of volunteering on either physical functional ability or self-rated health. For mental health, volunteering had a favourable effect on depression, life satisfaction and wellbeing. With the possible exception of wellbeing, the trial studies did not support the findings from included cohort studies.
39. Review limitations
While meta-analysis of survival data was undertaken, analysis of the remaining physical and mental health outcomes was restricted to vote counting due to heterogeneity. The generalisability of the evidence reviewed here is also limited. Indeed, most studies were based in the USA where there is a strong history of volunteering and a wide disparity in health, and involved samples of community dwelling people aged 50 years or over. The relevance of the current findings on a nation where health inequalities and volunteering are less prevalent may be questionable.
40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating
17
41. Quality appraisal tool used by review (if applicable)
ROB-2 for RCTs, and Newcastle-Otowa scale for non-randomised studies.
42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)
Four out of five RCTs were at moderate or high risk of bias due to the random sequence generation not being described, high attrition rates, and small sample sizes available for analysis. Quality appraisal of non-RCTs found three non-RCTs were at moderate risk of bias, and one non-RCT at low risk. In contrast, most papers reporting cohort studies were large and well designed (25/29 low risk, 4/29 moderate risk).
43. Publication bias reported (if applicable)
N/A
44. Was correspondence required for further study information?
-- Select response --
Yes
No
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)?
Print Data
seemless p Browser does not support iframes. Please update your browser to for a better viewing experience.