SRDR+

1. Review ID

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


	Cattan 2011

2. Review title


	Improving quality of life in ageing populations: What can volunteering do?

3. Date form completed


	16/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	KH

5. Review funding source


	Not stated

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	Authors state there are no competing interests

7. Aim of review


	The purpose of the review was to provide a comprehensive review of current knowledge regarding the role of volunteering in improving older people’s quality of life (QoL) and to identify areas requiring further research.

8. Number of databases searched


	9 plus google scholar

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


	Web of Knowledge, ASSIA, Psycarticles, Pro Quest Nursing, Pubmed, CINAHL, Medline, Google Scholar, Zetoc, and Cochrane Reviews; 2005 to 2011

10. Date of last search


	2011?

11. Number of included studies


	22 studies and 5 review articles

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	Inclusion: Studies that included people aged 50 years and over because this is the age used by major charities providing volunteering opportunities for older people, such as AgeUK, Saga and AARP, for their membership.

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

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


	Inclusion: For the purposes of this review article, volunteering is regarded as an activity that is freely chosen, does not involve remuneration and helps or benefits those beyond an individual’s immediate family. In advanced capitalist economies, voluntary work takes place through formal organisations (in the public, private and voluntary and community sectors [VCS]) and more informally, through community groups. Other settings for volunteering include within the public and private sectors. The review focuses mainly on ‘formal volunteering’, which takes place in organisations, public agencies, religious institutions etc. – within the VCS – but also consider informal volunteering, such as caring obligations and volunteering within the other two sectors of the economy.

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	None specified.

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	Inclusion: Benefits of volunteering for older people in terms of their quality of life. Quality of life (QoL) was defined using Bowling’s broad social description of older people’s QoL. Studies that only investigated the impact of volunteering on mortality or risk of disease were excluded.

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Quality of Life

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	None

19. Number of participants included in the review


	Not stated

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


	Randomised controlled trial (1), Longitudinal (13), Surveys (3), Case control (1), Case study (1), Quasi-experimental (1), Qualitative (2), reviews (5) 91% Quantitative

21. Included studies countries of publication


	USA (14); Canada (3); Australia (2); England (1); Europe (1); Singapore (1)

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	2004-2011

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	The majority of the studies included participants from either the age of 55 or 65 years, but some included participants aged 50 years and over and two projects focused on those aged 70 and over. A small number of studies had oversampled specific ethnic groups to ensure a representative sample, but had not made use of the diversity of the sample for comparative analyses.

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


	The general conclusion from these studies is that there is a positive association between older people’s quality of life and engagement in volunteering. However, due to the study designs used, causality is difficult to demonstrate.

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)


	The positive impact of volunteering on depression in older women and in older people with dual sensory loss seems fairly convincing. However, it is possible that mainly people with a positive past experience of volunteering chose to volunteer in later life.

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


	Although there are indications that volunteering may help to maintain and possibly improve some older adults’ quality of life there are still major gaps in our knowledge regarding who actually benefits, the social and cultural context of volunteering and its role in reducing health and social inequalities.

39. Review limitations


	Non reported but some limitations to methodology

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	-12

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


	Non

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)


	Not reported

43. Publication bias reported (if applicable)


	Not reported

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)?