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)


	Owen 2022

2. Review title


	Enhancing Older Adults’ Well-Being and Quality of Life Through Purposeful Activity: A Systematic Review of Intervention Studies

3. Date form completed


	09/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	None declared.

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	None declared.

7. Aim of review


	This review aimed to determine the nature and effectiveness of purposeful activity interventions in older adults, aged 80 years and older, with respect to well-being and quality-of-life outcomes.

8. Number of databases searched


	3

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


	Ovid Medline, PsycInfo, and CINAHL

10. Date of last search


	April 2020

11. Number of included studies


	8 (5 assessed functional roles/ volunteering)

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	samples with a mean age of 80 or above ('oldest old' population). There were no exclusion criteria relating to the presence of cognitive impairment or other health conditions, or the setting in which participants lived, that is, both community-dwelling older adults and those residing in residential care homes were eligible for inclusion.

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	Purposeful activity (both volunteering/functional roles and learning a new skills were included, but these were distinguished)

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	Intervention studies

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	at least one standardized measure of quality of life or well-being, including mood and life satisfaction: both components of subjective well-being, as well as clinical depression and anxiety scales. Both self-report and observer-rated measures were eligible for inclusion.

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Wellbeing

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	N/A

19. Number of participants included in the review


	samples sizes ranged from 10 to 88

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


	100% quant: 5 RCTs, once NRCT, and 1 cohort study

21. Included studies countries of publication


	4 from the US, one each from; Canada, Italy, belgium, and croatia.

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	2003-2017

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	All studies were conducted with participants residing in residential care homes, nursing homes, and/or assisted living facilities,

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


	Significant improvement in life satisfaction (1)- weak quality study. Significant decrease in anxiety compared to an increase in the active control condition (1)- strong quality.

29. Psychological outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	No significant difference in depression scores compared to the active control condition (1)- strong quality

30. General outcomes reported

(i.e general health and wellbeing)


	four of the five studies in this group showed evidence of an increase in at least one well-being outcome in the intervention group (4)

31. General outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant) 


	One study showed no significant effect on wellbeing (1)- was moderate quality but only had 10 Ps. Significant improvement in global wellbeing was also found in the usual care group (1).

32. Interactions reported

(i.e between each other or demographic variables)


	None

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


	Studies of functional roles demonstrated some evidence in favor of functional role interventions having a positive effect on well-being outcomes. while there is some evidence that interventions in this group could be at least as effective as other types of intervention as improving well-being, the strength of these conclusions is limited by a relative lack of power and/or comparisons against appropriate passive and active control groups in the studies.

39. Review limitations


	while the strength and quantity of evidence were greatest for interventions involving a specific functional role, conclusions about the effectiveness of both types of intervention were limited by a lack of high-quality, wellpowered studies, with appropriate control conditions. it is notable that the participants of all studies were based in residential care settings. As such, the findings, and indeed the interventions, may not be generalizable to communitydwelling adults of the same age range. due to the lack of consensus regarding a definition of “purposeful activity,” as well as a lack of consistency with which relevant interventions are described within the literature, it was difficult to develop a search strategy that was sufficiently sensitive. an exhaustive search of the gray literature was not undertaken. Unpublished research is more likely to report null findings only studies that were published in English were included in this review, which may have resulted in relevant studies published in other languages being overlooked.

while the strength and quantity of evidence were greatest for interventions involving a specific functional role, conclusions about the effectiveness of both types of intervention were limited by a lack of high-quality, wellpowered studies, with appropriate control conditions.
it is notable that the participants of all studies were based in residential care settings. As such, the findings, and indeed the interventions, may not be generalizable to communitydwelling adults of the same age range.
due to the lack of consensus regarding a definition of “purposeful activity,” as well as a lack of consistency with which relevant interventions are described within the literature, it was difficult to develop a search strategy that was sufficiently sensitive. 
an exhaustive search of the gray literature was not undertaken. Unpublished research is more likely to report null findings 
only studies that were published in English were included in this review, which may have resulted in relevant studies published in other languages being overlooked.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	5

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


	Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)


	ranged from weak (25%) to strong (25%), with the most common global rating being “moderate” (50%).

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)?