SRDR+

1. Review ID

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


	Lovell 2015

2. Review title


	Understanding how environmental enhancement and conservation activities may benefit health and wellbeing: a systematic review

3. Date form completed


	08/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	This research and the original systematic review were funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR) Programme. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	RL has worked with authors of individual studies included in the review but not on the studies themselves. All other authors declare they have no competing interests.

7. Aim of review


	The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the health and wellbeing impacts of participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities and to understand how these activities may be beneficial, to whom and in what circumstances or contexts.

8. Number of databases searched


	27

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


	(can't access the table of databases)

10. Date of last search


	October 2012

11. Number of included studies


	23 (10 quant, 3 mixed methods)

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	any population of participants (whether voluntary or compelled) of any age (the review reported here includes children and young people, populations

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	outdoor, physically active environmental enhancement or conservation activities (rural or urban)

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	Any

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	any relevant health and wellbeing outcomes whether physiological, physical, mental (including emotional and quality of life), or social, or mechanisms for health e.g physical activity

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Effectiveness of volunteering (quant)

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	perceived benefits and mechanisms of effect (qual data), and the creation of a conceptual model.

19. Number of participants included in the review


	between 1-2630 (removed case studies from the synthesis)

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


	50% /50% (13 qual, 13 quant)- only extracted quantitative findings

21. Included studies countries of publication


	Had to be produced in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country (to ensure some comparability in context). 16 were from the UK, the rest were from Australia, Canada, or the US.

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	1999-2011

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	Participants were predominantly adult, with an average age of approximately 40–60; just two studies reported evaluations of programmes working with children or young people. There was very little detail regarding the socio-economic or educational status of the participants. Participation in the majority of the programmes appeared to be voluntary, where it is assumed people take part for enjoyment, leisure, or environmental and community concerns.

24. Social outcomes reported


	Positive impact on social function (1).

25. Social outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

26. Physical outcomes reported


	Increase in grip strength (1). Significant increase in self-reported physical activity (3).

27. Physical outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	No significant imporvement in aerobic capacity, BMI, weight, body composition, flexibility, blood pressure, balance or hip/waist ratio) (1).

28. Psychological outcomes reported


	Increase in mental health and wellbeing states (3)

29. Psychological outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	No impact on mental health (1), or no significant improvement (1).

30. General outcomes reported

(i.e general health and wellbeing)


	association between volunteering and quality of life (4) in adults and children.

31. General outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant) 


	There was little quantitative evidence of positive health and wellbeing benefits from participating in environmental enhancement and conservation activities. Most outcomes reported in quantitative studies were not statistically significant, drawn from small samples (<20 meaning that statistical analyses are problematic, or were inconsistent. The majority of the quality of life measures were inconclusive; one study found a negative impact (1).

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


	While the majority of the quantitative evidence was inconclusive and drawn from poor quality studies using small scale, lower-order study designs (with predominantly self-selected participants) unsuitable to test relationships robustly, there were tentative indications that environmental enhancement and conservation activities may have some benefit to the health and wellbeing of those participating (however, it should also be noted there was some evidence of a negative impact on aspects of mental health and QoL). The benefits of the activities perceived by participants in the qualitative research were not reflected in the quantitative evidence. The reasons for this are not clear. It could be that these samples are drawn from different populations, that the benefits identified in the qualitative research (such as increased confidence and social contact) are not measured in the quantitative research or are difficult to quantify, that people perceive benefits that are not in fact at measureable levels, or it may be due to limitations in the study design (such as small sample sizes and short follow up).

While the majority of the quantitative evidence was inconclusive and drawn from poor quality studies using small scale, lower-order study designs (with predominantly self-selected participants) unsuitable to test relationships robustly, there were tentative indications that environmental enhancement and conservation activities may have some benefit to the health and wellbeing of those participating (however, it should also be noted there was some evidence of a negative impact on aspects of mental health and QoL).
The benefits of the activities perceived by participants in
the qualitative research were not reflected in the quantitative evidence. The reasons for this are not clear. It could be that these samples are drawn from different populations, that the benefits identified in the qualitative research (such as increased confidence and social contact) are not measured in the quantitative research or are difficult to quantify, that people perceive benefits that are not in fact at measureable levels, or it may be due to limitations in the study design (such as small sample sizes and short follow up).

39. Review limitations


	It was not possible to reliably assess variation in impact according to activity type, environment or according to any of the usual demographic factors (such as age, employment etc.), due to the poor quality of studies and inadequate reporting. The study designs of the included research were insufficient to show any causal relationships between the activities and outcomes. Poor level of reporting of included studies.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	0

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


	For quant: Effective Public Health Practice Project tool

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)


	quant: all poor quality and lower-order study designs, qual: 10 poor quality, 3 good

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