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)
Hyde 2014
2. Review title
A systematic review of episodic volunteering in public health and other contexts
3. Date form completed
08/08/2022
4. Initials of person extracting
BN
5. Review funding source
The authors have no acknowledgements or sources of funding to declare.
6. Possible conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
7. Aim of review
to our knowledge there are no systematic reviews of EV in public health or other contexts. Accordingly, we conducted a systematic review to describe the available empirical evidence for EV broadly and specifically for public health NPOs or community organisations, and from this provide recommendations for future research.
8. Number of databases searched
12
9. Names of databases searched; date ranges of databases searched
EbscoHOST, ProQuest, Science Direct, Web of Science, Wiley, Ingenta Connect, Taylor & Francis, JSTOR, and SAGE
10. Date of last search
April week 2, 2014
11. Number of included studies
20 for within health and social welfare, 41 overall.
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)
Episodic volunteering: occuring once or on a seasonal or annual basis, outside a disaster setting in the person's own country, to support NPIs providing health and social welfare services to the community
14. Exclusion criteria for study type
Qualitative and quantitative studies that identified the whole sample or a sub-sample of episodic volunteers, published in English after 1st January 1990 and prior to April Week 2, 2014
15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures
None
16. Outcomes studied
(select all that apply)
Psychological
Physical
Social
General
17. Primary reported outcomes
EV prevalence and participation patterns, benefits, who volunteers for EV and for what kinds of activities, within the health and social welfare sector.
18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)
EV in general
19. Number of participants included in the review
No information.
20. Review’s included study type (% of quant studies)
16 were cross-sectional descriptive quantitative studies; 5 were cross-sectional descriptive qualitative studies; and 1 included both cross-sectional and prospective descriptive quantitative studies.
21. Included studies countries of publication
conducted primarily in North America (16 in the US and 3 in Canada)
22. Range of included studies years of publication
All except two EV articles were published since 2002, with a comparison over the specific years 1999–2003 (n = 2) and 2009–2013 (n = 22) showing approximately a tenfold increase in the number of studies.
23. Review’s population
(age, ethnicity, SES)
All were of EV within the health and social welfare sector, but only 5 were for NPIs (the remaining were for a charity event). Lack of a definition of a duration and frequency of episodic volunteering. 12 did not report demographic characteristics for EVs. Of the remaining studies, 16 provided an average age for their EV sample and this ranged from 20.4 years to 45.0 years; 14 provided an age range (most commonly 30 to 60 years); and 2 did not specify age. 28 studies reported gender, with the proportion of males ranging from 10% to 100%; and 32.8% to 100% for females. Less than half of included studies reported ethnicity, with the remainder reporting predominantly Caucasian samples (49.99% to 100%). Of the few studies that reported relationship status (n = 8); employment (n = 10); or income (n = 8), the majority were married (range 36% to 79.8%); employed full or part-time (range 57% to 94%); and middle income (USD ≥ $50,000).
24. Social outcomes reported
Appreciation from staff and families noted as an important benefit for 45.7% of volunteers (1). Increasing social ties (1).
25. Social outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
Although increasing social ties was a benefit for ongoing volunteers, only 44.6% of EVs reported forming close social connections with other volunteers (1).
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)
31. General outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
32. Interactions reported
(i.e between each other or demographic variables)
N/A
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
there are critical gaps in the research to date that limit our understanding and knowledge. These critical gaps are: the lack of definitional clarity on EV; the use of atheoretical approaches; and the absence of an assessment of EV economic/social value or costs. First, only half of the studies reviewed defined EV, and these definitions varied widely.
39. Review limitations
Research reviewed comprised low level evidence, crosssectional descriptive qualitative (Level III) or quantitative (Level IV) studies, with only one study combining crosssectional and prospective research. Reporting of sample characteristics was not consistent.
40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating
-2
41. Quality appraisal tool used by review (if applicable)
Quantitative cross-sectional and prospective studies were assessed using criteria adapted from established tools for cohort and case–control studies [46] and included: representativeness of the study sample (participant selection), measures applied (reliability and validity), attrition bias, and evidence of follow-up.
42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)
All quantitative studies were classified as Level IV evidence studies. 60% used samples of participants who were representative of the larger EV sample, ten studies used previously reliable and valudated tools, only one study was prospective.
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.