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)
Onyx 2003
2. Review title
Volunteering and health among older people: a review
3. Date form completed
22/08/2022
4. Initials of person extracting
BN
5. Review funding source
None declared
6. Possible conflicts of interest
None declared
7. Aim of review
There is strong cumulative evidence that such a relationship exists, and that it cannot be accounted for simply in terms of existing theories of social support or healthy life style activities. We theorise the obtained relationship in terms of the development of social capital within the communitv in which volunteering occurs, and identify potential policy implications of the relationship.
8. Number of databases searched
'several' (two named)
9. Names of databases searched; date ranges of databases searched
Academic Search Elite and Ovid Database
10. Date of last search
No date (past 10 years)
11. Number of included studies
25
12. Exclusion criteria for participants
(e.g age, comorbidities)
Based in 'economically advanced' countries (e.g US and Australia)
13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering
(e.g type of volunteering, for a specific organistion/purpose)
Older people
14. Exclusion criteria for study type
No information
15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures
Health and social capital
16. Outcomes studied
(select all that apply)
Psychological
Physical
Social
General
17. Primary reported outcomes
Measures of health
18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)
The wider political context of older people as volunteers, and structures of social support amongst older people.
19. Number of participants included in the review
No information
20. Review’s included study type (% of quant studies)
No information
21. Included studies countries of publication
No information
22. Range of included studies years of publication
1980-2002
23. Review’s population
(age, ethnicity, SES)
No information
24. Social outcomes reported
25. Social outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
26. Physical outcomes reported
Relationship with mortality (2); Some of these effects were moderated by variables such as age, sex, socio-economic status, health and social integration, but volunteering still had a significant effect on mortality rates over and above the impact of other variables (1). Existed after controlling for religious attendance, social support, and health habits (1 longitudinal). Perdicted positive health outcomes 30 years later (1). Reduced smoking and increased exercise (4) participation in social activities such as volunteering reduced risk of institutionalisation (1). volunteering is associated with better perceived health (6 cross sectional, 1 longitudinal) and life satisfaction (1 longitudinal)
27. Physical outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
28. Psychological outcomes reported
Improved self-esteem (1), coping with stress (1), and adjustment to critical life events (2). Increased life satisfaction and decreased depression and anxiety (1).
29. Psychological outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
30. General outcomes reported
(i.e general health and wellbeing)
volunteering is associated with measures of personal well-being (6). Curvilinear relationship (several studies)
31. General outcomes not supported
(e.g cited as non-significant)
32. Interactions reported
(i.e between each other or demographic variables)
Being active in later life and maintaining social networks through volunteering is associated with psychological well-being (2), possibly due to locus of control (1). curvilinear relationship (1). Older people are more likely to volunteer becausse it provides social interaction (4), and to make a useful social contribution (3), of for meaning (4). Generate the hypothesis that volunteering generates social capital, with positive effects on health and wellbeing. Social ties and trust and associated with high levels of community wellbeing and health (1). Formal volunteering is key to generating social capital (1). Volunteering for organisations with a service focus find the most benefits to health and wellbeing (1). Volunteering will be most beneficial when it is social, includes strong emotional support, supports the wellbeing of recipients, and involves cognitive or physical activity.
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
formal volunteering has a direct impact on well-being, functional health and longevity, and this impact is net of initial health levels, socio-economic status, or informal social integration. The evidence cited above suggests that older people who volunteer have strong social networks beyond the immediate family. They have multiple and valued social roles, and they are in a position to assist others while gaining information and skills for themselves. They are likely to maintain significantly higher levels of wellbeing, a strong sense of their own worth and better functional health than those who do not volunteer. It is likely that not all volunteering is equally beneficial. Too much may be as counter-productive as too little, as several studies point to the curvilinear relationship between volunteering and health. Volunteering that increases stress levels, or fails to provide interpersonal support, or that is focused on individual gratification, may be ineffective.
39. Review limitations
None discussed
40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating
-22
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.