Table 4.
General benefits
| Review | Positive outcomes (number of studies) | Negative or non-significant outcomes | AMSTAR 2 rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson et al. (2014) |
Increased well-being (2 prospective) Increased quality of life (2 descriptive, 2 cross-sectional, 1 prospective) |
− 10 | |
| Cattan et al. (2011) |
Increase in quality of life (CASP score) for older adults (4) Increased self-rated health/mental health (8) Increased physical/mental health (7) |
− 10 | |
| Conway et al. (2009) | Negligible effect on well-being with a CI that crossed 0 | − 20 | |
| Farrell & Bryant (2009) | Protective effect against well-being in over 65 s (1) | No effect on well-being in younger age groups (1) | − 15 |
| Gualano et al. (2018) | Significant increase in well-being (2) | 9 | |
| Höing et al. (2016) | Increased quality of life (6) | No significant improvements in well-being (1) | − 7 |
| Howard & Serviss (2022) | Significant prediction of organisational-level participation and well-being | No significant prediction of employee-level voluntary participation and well-being | − 17 |
| Hui et al., (2020) |
Small but significant prediction of both binary and continuous measures of volunteering with well-being Very small but significant prediction of formal volunteering and well-being |
− 12 | |
| Jenkinson et al. 2013 |
Significantly increased well-being (1 RCT, 3 cohorts follow-ups between 10 and29 years) Improved quality of life when volunteers felt appreciated (2 cohorts) |
17 | |
| Kragt & Holtrop (2019) | Improved well-being compared to non-volunteers (3) (a dose response relationship for older adults (2)) | − 15 | |
| Lovell et al. (2015) | Increased quality of life (4) |
Mostly non-significant effects on well-being, with small sample sizes, or inconsistent evidence Mixed evidence increased quality of life, 1 found a negative effect |
0 |
| O’Flynn et al. (2021) | Increased well-being (2) | − 14 | |
| Onyx & Warburton (2003) | Increased personal well-being (6) (several studies indicate a curvilinear relationship) | ||
| Owen et al., (2022) | Increase in at least one well-being outcome (4) |
No significant effect on well-being (1) Significant improvement in well-being also in the usual care group (1) |
5 |
| Bonsdorff & Rantanen (2011) | Curvilinear relationship with well-being; moderate is best (2) | − 14 |