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)


	Manjunath 2021

2. Review title


	Interventions against Social Isolation of Older Adults: A Systematic Review of Existing Literature and Interventions

3. Date form completed


	08/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	This research received no external funding.

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	The authors declare no conflict of interest.

7. Aim of review


	We completed a systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of 20 interventions used to combat social isolation in older adults.

8. Number of databases searched


	4

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


	“MedLine”, “PubMed”, “PsycINFO” and “Aging and Mental Health”

10. Date of last search


	No information

11. Number of included studies


	20

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	adults over 50

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	The interventions were targeted towards older adults experiencing loneliness, and a method was proposed to combat isolation (volunteering was one of 6 categories).

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	Published in English, quasi-experimental, observational or randomized clinical trial studies.

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	Outcomes around social isolation in older adults.

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Social isolation

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	N/A

19. Number of participants included in the review


	N/A

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


	7 observational and 13 experimental intervention studies (two for volunteering; one international and one prospective)

21. Included studies countries of publication


	1 international, the other Sweden

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	2017 and 2019

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	N/A

24. Social outcomes reported

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


	increased life satisfaction (1) and decsreased liklihood of dementia treatment (1), and increased happiness (1).

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)


	Religious volunteering positively impacts female happiness and male life satisfaction (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


	After analyzing various types of interventions, we concluded that group interventions and person-centered interventions were the most effective programs, especially when carried out for long periods of time. To increase independence among older adults while combatting social isolation, we recommend that older adults develop virtual connections, and become volunteers in their community.

39. Review limitations


	None discussed specific to volunteering

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	-11

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


	JBI checklist for randomized clinical trials, qualitative research and quasi-experimental studies.

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)


	JBI scores of 4 and 9 of the volunteering studies

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)?