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)


	Wheeler 1998

2. Review title


	The beneficial effects of volunteering for older volunteers and the people they serve: a meta-analysis

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

8. Number of databases searched


	4

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


	Psychological, sociological, and social work abstracts as well as dissertation abstracts

10. Date of last search


	No information

11. Number of included studies


	37 (30 collected data on outcomes for volunteers)

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	Older adults

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	all forms of volunteering activity (voluntary association membership, indirect and direct helping roles)- so that any differential effects can be observed across the continuum

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	\|None (reviews included)

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	None (outcomes for the volunteer, people they serve, or both)

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	outcomes for the volunteer

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	outcomes for the people the volunteers serve

19. Number of participants included in the review


	Ranged from 15 to 2164, median 98.

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


	100% quant: Most were cross-sectional (78%), 62% with standardised measures. 29 journal articles, 7 dissertations, 1 conference paper.

21. Included studies countries of publication


	92% US, remaining 3 were from Canada.

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	From 1968 to 1994, median 1984

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	Average age: 71, 90% white, 72% female. VOlunteering for an average of 4 hours per week (range 1-20 hours), and typically volunteered for a year (range 2-48 months).

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


	68% of included reviews measured life satisfaction: Combined with depression and goal attainment to measure quality of life. Results are based on these composite results: found a significant association, such that 70% of volunteers enjoy greater life satisfaction than the average non-volunteer. 16 studies adjusted for covariates (e.g health, SES); though the adjusted effect size was smaller, it remained significant. 13.5% studies measured depression.

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)


	Type of volunteering was a significant moderator of the benefits; volunteers engaged in direct helping derived greater benefits that more indirect or less formal helping roles (t = 3.70, p < .01)- for life satisfaction, such that almost 8 out of 10 formal volunteers scored higher than non-volunteers.

33. Was a meta-analysis performed?

34. Number of included studies in the meta-analysis


	Unadjusted: 29 Adjusted: 16

35. Heterogeneity

(e.g I squared)


	None provided

36. Pooled estimates


	Mean r index for life satisfaction; .252, p < .001 Mean adjusted r index for life satisfaction; t = 2.47 (comparison of means) p < .01

37. Confidence intervals (95%)


	None provided

38. Key conclusions from study authors


	Nearly three quarters (70%) of the older volunteer participants scored higher on quality of life measures than their average non-volunteer counterpart did. Moreover, such effect of volunteering are probably not merely 'healthy participator' effects; they persisted even after the independent effects of health and socioeconomic status were accounted for.

39. Review limitations


	None discussed

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	-17

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)


	Applied Rosenthal's failsafe Ns at P , .05 to calculate the number of null findings needed to change the significance of the outcome. For outcomes for volunteers, the number of null findings needed was 491 (more than fiftenn times the number of included studies in the review). 'This review's overall findings seem highly resistent to the potential impact of unretrieved null results'.

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)?