SRDR+

1. Review ID

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


	Kragt 2019

2. Review title


	Volunteering research in Australia: A narrative review

3. Date form completed


	08/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	Australian Research Council; Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	No information

7. Aim of review


	we review volunteering research conducted in Australia, using volunteering journey as a framework. Specifically, we summarise literature on volunteer characteristics, motivations, benefits, psychological contract, commitment, and withdrawal.

8. Number of databases searched


	2

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


	Web of Science and Scopus databases

10. Date of last search


	August 2018

11. Number of included studies


	152 (on all aspects of volunteering in Australia)

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	None

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	None

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	Studies had to be based in Australia

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	Benefits

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	volunteer characteristics, motivations, benefits, psychological contract, commitment, and withdrawal.

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	None

19. Number of participants included in the review


	No information

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


	No information (mixed)

21. Included studies countries of publication


	Australia

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	No information

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	No information

24. Social outcomes reported


	Improved social wellbeing compared to non-volunteers (1). Social benefits of sea search volunteering (1). Increased social connectedness (3), forming relationships (1). Reciprocal relationship with sense of community and volunteering (1).

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


	Volunteers were more extroverted and optimistic and to perceive a greater sense of control in their lives than non-volunteers (1), significant increase in mood states (1). Improved self-confidence when looking after patients with dementia (1).

29. Psychological outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

30. General outcomes reported

(i.e general health and wellbeing)


	Improved wellbeing compared to non-volunteers (3), a dose resonse relationship to wellbeing for older adults (2).

31. General outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant) 

32. Interactions reported

(i.e between each other or demographic variables)


	some support for a partially mediating effect of volunteering between religiosity and wellbeing among Australian churchgoers (1). retirees who continued to work were less satisfied than retirees who transitioned to volunteer work (1). Older people are more concerned about emotionally meaningful activities than future goals and achievements (1), and display more altruism (1). Job demands resources model (demands and resources impacts a volunteers mental health, explaining burnout, most support for burnout mediating demands-> mental health relationship (2). Mixed results on dose response relationship with burnout, one study finds positive (1), one negative (1), and one non-linear (1). Percieved organisational support improves satisfaction (2) and percieved benefits of volunteering (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


	The benefits of volunteering are contingent on many conditions (e.g., supervisor support, relations with peers, reason to volunteer). Furthermore, some conditions (e.g., time spent volunteering) do not appear to be linearly related to benefits. A framework that combines these critical conditions across volunteering roles may contribute to our understanding of how to maximise the benefits that volunteers experience in their role.

39. Review limitations


	There appear to be major theoretical gaps in our understanding of volunteering processes and outcomes, for example, why volunteering leads to better wellbeing outcomes. Therefore, the time is ripe for a more integrative approach (viewing volunteering as a process rather than in stages). Another concern we had was a lack of methodological rigour in testing theories. A lot of volunteering research in Australia is descriptive and qualitative. the most salient limitation of the current review is that it is wholly narrative and descriptive.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	-15

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


	N/A

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)?