SRDR+

1. Review ID

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


	Blais 2017

2. Review title


	Examining the Benefits of Intergenerational Volunteering in Long-Term Care: A Review of the Literature

3. Date form completed


	15/08/22

4. Initials of person extracting


	KH

5. Review funding source


	Brock University’s Match of Minds program

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	None stated

7. Aim of review


	To examine the benefits to youth and older adults of intergenerational interactions between residents of long-term care homes and youth. The review focuses on intergenerational volunteering by high school and postsecondary college and university students.

8. Number of databases searched


	2 (plus google scholar)

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


	Google scholar, PubMed, and CINAHL; dates not specified

10. Date of last search


	Not specified

11. Number of included studies


	5

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	Inclusion criteria were the following: Volunteers were high school or postsecondary students Older adults resided in a long-term care home (i.e., nursing home, assisted-living facility, or continuing care home) Interaction between the student and resident took place primarily at the long-term care homes Exclusion criteria were the following: Residents, not students volunteering

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	Inclusion criteria were the following: Volunteering involved direct contact between the student and the residents Exclusion criteria were the following: All student participants received a class credit (i.e., intergenerational interactions were only in the context of a service-learning course or other course-based activities required for academic credit)

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	Non stated

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	Non stated

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Benefits

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	N/A

19. Number of participants included in the review


	Not reported as a whole (poss 195)

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


	3 (60%) quantitative studies/2 (40%) qualitative studies

21. Included studies countries of publication


	3 United States/2 Canada

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	2004-2014

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	Not reported

24. Social outcomes reported


	Benefits for youth included developing new communication and career-related skills, improved attitudes toward older adults, and the development of meaningful relationships and friendships. Benefits for residents were engagement in activities with the students.

25. Social outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	Non reported

26. Physical outcomes reported


	Benefits for residents with aphasia were improved communication abilities.

27. Physical outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	Non reported

28. Psychological outcomes reported


	Benefits for residents were enhanced well-being.

29. Psychological outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	Non reported

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)


	Non reported

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


	Volunteering and intergenerational exchange between youth and residents of long-term-care homes is feasible and can result in significant benefits for both youth volunteers and residents. Benefits for students, noted in the current literature, include positive attitudes about aging, understanding the importance of autonomy and dignity of residents, enhanced communication skills, career-related learning, and positive feelings about developing relationships with residents. Benefits for residents include improved communication abilities, engagement and pleasure in arts activities with youth volunteers, and enhanced well-being.

39. Review limitations


	Non reported by authors except the effects of the interactions with the youth volunteers and the effects of the art activities are confounded and that there was limited research however review methodology is generally of low quality.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	-23

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


	None

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)


	Not reported

43. Publication bias reported (if applicable)


	None

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)?