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)
von Bonsdorff 2011
2. Review title
Benefits of formal voluntary work among older people. A review
3. Date form completed
09/08/2022
4. Initials of person extracting
BN
5. Review funding source
No information
6. Possible conflicts of interest
No information
7. Aim of review
to examine the association of formal voluntary work and personal well-being among older people doing the voluntary work and those being served.
8. Number of databases searched
9
9. Names of databases searched; date ranges of databases searched
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge, and CSA (Sociological Abstracts).
10. Date of last search
November 30, 2009
11. Number of included studies
16
12. Exclusion criteria for participants
(e.g age, comorbidities)
at least 60 years old
13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering
(e.g type of volunteering, for a specific organistion/purpose)
voluntary work quantified as visits or hours within a certain time frame.
14. Exclusion criteria for study type
the study had to employ a longitudinal or experimental design, be peer reviewed and written in english.
15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures
None.
16. Outcomes studied
(select all that apply)
Psychological
Physical
Social
General
17. Primary reported outcomes
health, collapsed into three categories of personal well-being: physical health, mental health, and psychosocial resources
18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)
N/A
19. Number of participants included in the review
Prospective studies: 705 to 7496, except for one which included 71 women from the Baltimore Experience Corps Extended Pilot Study, matched with a comparison cohort of 150 women. RCT: 128 participants
20. Review’s included study type (% of quant studies)
100 quant: Thirteen observational studies analyzed data from large populationbased prospective datasets, and three experimental studies used data from one randomized controlled trial.
21. Included studies countries of publication
All were conducted in the US
22. Range of included studies years of publication
1993-2009
23. Review’s population
(age, ethnicity, SES)
Prospective studies: Age ranged between 60 and 97 years (mean age 70.1-77.0 yrs). Most of the participants (6070%) were women and predominantly white. Volunteers were more highly educated, had better perceived health and fewer functional impairments than non-volunteers (28). However, most of the studies did not present baseline data according to voluntary status, making it hard to compare volunteers with non-volunteers as regards socio-demographics, health and functional status. The only RCT: predominantly Afro-American participants over 60 years.
24. Social outcomes reported
25. Social outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
26. Physical outcomes reported
Volunteering predicted better self rated health (5), and fewer difficulties or disability in activities of daily living tasks than among non-volunteers, with follow-ups ranging from 2 to 8 years (5). increased hours spent volunteering at the age of 60 years or later predicted lower levels of functional dependency (1 longitudinal study). Increased physical activity levels (3): in women compared to non-volunteers (who has similar SES) (1), and for high intensity volunteering in a more general sample (1), and measured in kilocalories per week (1).. Positive trend towards improved physical functioning (1), aalthough the power was low.
27. Physical outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
no association between volunteering and the number of self-reported physician-diagnosed chronic diseases (2). Volunteering did not predict living at a nursing home 7 years later (1).
28. Psychological outcomes reported
Beneficial impact on depression (6 prospective studies). Significant increase in life satisfaction (1).
29. Psychological outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
30. General outcomes reported
(i.e general health and wellbeing)
Curvilinear relationship with wellbeing; moderate is best (2), e.g 100 hours per year (1). volunteering at the age of 60 years or later predicted lower mortality in prospective studies (5).
31. General outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
32. Interactions reported
(i.e between each other or demographic variables)
the number and type of organization coordinating the voluntary work was not associated with well-being outcomes (1), however the risk for death was lower for those who volunteered for one organization (1), and religious volunteering and the longer duration of volunteering predicted better well-being in older age (1). persons with higher socioeconomic status and active church attendees had a lower incidence of depression and were more actively engaged in volunteering (1) -potential selection bias.
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
Volunteering in old age predicted better self-rated health, functioning, physical activity and life satisfaction, as well as decreased depression and mortality. However, it did not decrease the risk of chronic diseases or nursing home admission in old age.The problem of causal order between well-being and volunteering is a challenging one. Nor can we completely control for the “healthy participant effect”. It is a fact that people who are in good health and possess adequate social and economic resources tend to volunteer more.
39. Review limitations
There are only a few large datasets in the world that have been used for studying volunteering among older people. Most research data on the associations and effects of volunteering on health and well-being come from the United States and may not be applicable to European countries. In addition, the limited information available on the history of volunteer work in earlier life as well as the frequency and duration of volunteering in the large datasets limit more detailed analysis of this activity. Another potential threat to analysis is attrition, which is considerable in a prospective large dataset such as ACL (32). In longitudinal studies on older people, attrition tends to be missing not at random, and those who drop out differ in earlier followups from those who responded.
40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating
-14
41. Quality appraisal tool used by review (if applicable)
None
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?
-- 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.