Is volunteering a public health intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the health and survival of volunteers.
Is volunteering a public health intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the health and survival of volunteers.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2458-13-773
复制
发表时间：
2013-08-23
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Richards SH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jenkinson CE;Dickens AP;Jones K;Thompson-Coon J;Taylor RS;Rogers M;Bambra CL;Lang I;Richards SH
联合国以及美国和欧洲政府一直倡导将社区服务作为一种让人们参与当地社区并改善社会资本的方式，并有可能带来公共卫生福利，如改善福祉和减少健康不平等。此外，美国国家和社区服务公司2011-2015年战略计划侧重于增加国家服务对社区需求的影响，支持志愿人员的福祉，并优先考虑招募和参与代表性不足的人口。本综述的目的是研究正式志愿服务对志愿者身心健康和生存的影响，并探讨志愿服务类型和强度对健康结果的影响。2013年1月，从12个电子数据库（科克伦图书馆、Medline、Embase、PsychINFO、CINAHL、ERIC、HMIC、SSCI、ASSIA、Social Care Online、Social Policy and Practice）和引文跟踪中确定了比较志愿者组与非志愿者组的身心健康结局和死亡率的实验和队列研究。没有语言、国家或日期限制。数据合成基于投票计数和死亡风险比的随机效应荟萃分析。选择了40篇论文：5项随机对照试验（RCT，7篇论文）; 4项非RCT; 17项队列研究（29篇论文）。队列研究表明，志愿服务对抑郁症，生活满意度，幸福感有积极的影响，但对身体健康没有影响。这些发现没有得到实验研究的证实。5项队列研究的荟萃分析发现，志愿者的死亡风险较低（风险比：0.78; 95% CI：0.66，0.90）。没有足够的证据表明志愿服务的类型或强度对成果产生持续的影响。观察证据表明，志愿服务可能有益于心理健康和生存，但因果机制仍不清楚。因此，指导志愿服务发展成为公共卫生促进干预措施的设计严谨的研究有限。未来的研究应明确映射干预设计，以明确的健康结果，以及使用务实的随机对照试验方法来测试效果。
Volunteering has been advocated by the United Nations, and American and European governments as a way to engage people in their local communities and improve social capital, with the potential for public health benefits such as improving wellbeing and decreasing health inequalities. Furthermore, the US Corporation for National and Community Service Strategic Plan for 2011–2015 focused on increasing the impact of national service on community needs, supporting volunteers’ wellbeing, and prioritising recruitment and engagement of underrepresented populations. The aims of this review were to examine the effect of formal volunteering on volunteers’ physical and mental health and survival, and to explore the influence of volunteering type and intensity on health outcomes. Experimental and cohort studies comparing the physical and mental health outcomes and mortality of a volunteering group to a non-volunteering group were identified from twelve electronic databases (Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, HMIC, SSCI, ASSIA, Social Care Online, Social Policy and Practice) and citation tracking in January 2013. No language, country or date restrictions were applied. Data synthesis was based on vote counting and random effects meta-analysis of mortality risk ratios. Forty papers were selected: five randomised controlled trials (RCTs, seven papers); four non-RCTs; and 17 cohort studies (29 papers). Cohort studies showed volunteering had favourable effects on depression, life satisfaction, wellbeing but not on physical health. These findings were not confirmed by experimental studies. Meta-analysis of five cohort studies found volunteers to be at lower risk of mortality (risk ratio: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.90). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a consistent influence of volunteering type or intensity on outcomes. Observational evidence suggested that volunteering may benefit mental health and survival although the causal mechanisms remain unclear. Consequently, there was limited robustly designed research to guide the development of volunteering as a public health promotion intervention. Future studies should explicitly map intervention design to clear health outcomes as well as use pragmatic RCT methodology to test effects.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Dabelko-Schoeny, Holly;Anderson, Keith A.;Spinks, Katie
通讯作者：
Spinks, Katie
DOI：
10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
发表时间：
1986-09-01
期刊：
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS
影响因子：
--
作者：
DERSIMONIAN, R;LAIRD, N
通讯作者：
LAIRD, N
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Carlson, Michelle C.;Saczynski, Jane S.;Fried, Linda P.
通讯作者：
Fried, Linda P.
DOI：
10.1249/mss.0b013e3181f36196
发表时间：
2011-04-01
期刊：
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
影响因子：
--
作者：
Davis, Mark G.;Fox, Kenneth R.;Thompson, Janice L.
通讯作者：
Thompson, Janice L.
影响因子：
6.9
作者：
Bowman, Nicholas;Brandenberger, Jay;Quaranto, Jessica
通讯作者：
Quaranto, Jessica