SRDR+

1. Review ID

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


	Marco-Gordoqui 2020

2. Review title


	The impact of service-learning methodology on business schools’ students worldwide: A systematic literature review

3. Date form completed


	08/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	The authors received no specific funding for this work.

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

7. Aim of review


	The main objective of this study is to gather, identify, and classify evidence from 32 studies conducted across global business schools regarding the benefits of service-learning in university students. Therefore, the purpose ofthis review is to learn the impact ofthe SL application in academic, personal, and social training of students in business schools worldwide.

8. Number of databases searched


	3

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


	Web of Science, Scopus, and Educational Resource Information Center databases

10. Date of last search


	October 2019

11. Number of included studies


	32

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	Students in business education, management education, or business school

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	Service-learning

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	All study types (including qualitative), as long as they are experience-based.

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	Benefits

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Benefits of service learning

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	N/A

19. Number of participants included in the review


	the mean ofparticipants per quantitative studies being 228 students (median = 105), and the mean per mixed study being 106 students (median = 88, considering that 3 ofthe studies do not specify the sample)

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


	9 articles used qualitative techniques, 11 used quantitative techniques, and 12 of them used mixed techniques

21. Included studies countries of publication


	Mostly from American universities (23). Regarding the other 7 studies, they are from Ireland, Germany, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Russia, and South Africa.

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	2004-2019, with 2018 as the year when there were maximum publications

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	From the 32 analyzed studies, only 7 specifically state the participants’ year in the degree program. Among them, the SL methodology has been applied to the second, third, and final year of the study course.

24. Social outcomes reported


	the most frequent outcome mentioned in the analyzed studies is greater social engagement acquired by the students.

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


	Improved self-esteem and self-confidence (11) (the most cited benefit alongside social engagement). Increased motivation (4) Improved self-efficacy (3) feeling of pride (2)

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)


	Social outcomes are the most mentioned category in terms ofbenefits, followed by personal outcomes, citizenship outcomes, and knowledge outcomes. Year in which the SL was experienced. As stated above, the grade level in which the SL is experienced seems to be an important element to obtain the previously mentioned benefits. Gender elements. In a total ofsix articles, the gender variable is mentioned as a key element for the study’s analysis.

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 analyzed studies show the suitability to schedule SL activities not only to achieve academic but also personal, social, and citizenship outcomes. SL experiences are especially appropriate to foster greater commitment, justice, and social responsibility among students, as well as to foster self-esteem, self-confidence, and teamwork skills.

39. Review limitations


	Most ofthe analyzed research studies have been conducted in American universities. Therefore, research is somehow geographically biased, and this should be considered when reviewing the conclusions. Along the same line, most ofthe analyzed studies fail to mention the existing cultural differences between different students who participate in the experience, which can also be addressed in further research. With regard to the research design, most ofthem are cross-sectional.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	5

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


	10 key control questions list suggested by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for systematic reviews (very focused around a qualitative methodology)

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)


	Mostly good, but Qs were framed around qualitative research so were not applicable to the quant 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)?

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)?