Cited by 730Nonprofit Sector and VolunteeringTourism, Volunteerism, and DevelopmentPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 106 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Is volunteering a public health intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the health and survival of volunteers

Open access

Abstract

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis found observational evidence that formal volunteering may improve mental health and reduce mortality, but experimental evidence did not confirm consistent health benefits. The authors conclude there is limited robust evidence to guide volunteering as a public health intervention.

Key findings

  • Forty papers were included: 5 RCTs (7 papers), 4 non-RCTs, and 17 cohort studies (29 papers). Cohort studies showed favourable effects on depression, life satisfaction, and wellbeing, but not on physical health; these findings were not confirmed by experimental studies.
  • Meta-analysis of five cohort studies found volunteers had a lower risk of mortality (risk ratio: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.90; I² test: p = 0.65), corresponding to a 22% reduction (CI: 10% to 34%).
  • Vote counting found no consistent significant health benefits in experimental studies; only single trials reported significant associations with increased physical activity, strength, walking speed, empowerment, wellbeing, and decreased stress.
  • There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a consistent influence of volunteering type or intensity on outcomes.

Methods

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis following a pre-defined protocol and PRISMA; searches in January 2013 across twelve electronic databases plus citation tracking, with no language, country, or date restrictions.
  • Included experimental and cohort studies comparing physical and/or mental health outcomes and mortality in volunteers versus non-volunteers, adults aged 16 years and above; formal volunteering had to be regular and long-term, defined as a minimum of one hour a month on at least two occasions.
  • Data synthesis used vote counting for most outcomes and random-effects meta-analysis of mortality risk ratios; quality was appraised with the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort/non-RCT studies.

Limitations

  • The paper states that meta-analysis was possible only for survival data; other physical and mental health outcomes were restricted to vote counting due to heterogeneous interventions and study methods.
  • The paper states that generalisability is limited because most studies were based in the USA, involved community-dwelling people aged 50 years or over, and many non-USA studies reported cross-sectional data that were excluded.
  • The paper states that causal mechanisms remain unclear, selection effects and reverse causality cannot be conclusively ruled out, many cohort studies failed to fully describe volunteering status or measurement, and trial evidence was limited by small, likely underpowered samples and attrition.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2458-13-773

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 Flow chart of study selection process.
Figure 1 Flow chart of study selection process.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Forest plot to illustrate the effect of volunteering on risk of mortality.
Figure 2 Forest plot to illustrate the effect of volunteering on risk of mortality.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

38 Not checked yet · 16 Own result · 15 Own method · 14 Own interpretation · 4 No basis given

Verify all 106 references — free account

Show all 40 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 30
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 28
47 of 47
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The adjusted estimates from the included cohort studies adequately control for important potential socio-demographic and health-related confounders.

    “After adjusting for important potential socio-demographic and health-related confounders, volunteers had a significantly lower risk of mortality (risk ratio: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.90; I2 test: p = 0.65) compared to non-volunteers”
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 75 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. United Nations Volunteers Programme: Preparatory Committee for the Special Session of the General Assembly on the implementation of the outcome of the world summit for social development and further initiatives. Volunteering and social development. A/AC.253/16/Add.7. 2000, United Nations
  2. Mathou C: Volunteering in the European Union - final report. Educational, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency - Directorate General Education and Culture. 2010, London, UK: GHK
  3. European Year of Voluteering: Policy Agenda for Volunteering in Europe (PAVE). 2011, Brussels, Belgium: EYV 2011 Alliance Secretariat
  4. Department for Communities and Local Government: Citizenship survey: 2009–10 (April 2009 - March 2010), England. 2010, London, UK: UK Government
  5. Department of Health: Improving outcomes and supporting transparency. Part 1: a public health outcomes framework for England, 2013–2016. 2012, London, UK: Department of Health

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 728

Metadata

Authors
Jenkinson, C. E., Dickens, A. P., Jones, K., Thompson-Coon, J., Taylor, R. S., Rogers, M., Bambra, C. L., Lang, I., & Richards, S. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Richards, Suzanne H
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2013-08-23
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
773-773
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2039460587
Cited by
730
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 1
FWCI
19.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management › Tourism, Volunteerism, and Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
volunteering, public health interventions, volunteer health, mortality, mental health, depression, life satisfaction, well-being, physical health, social capital, health disparities
MeSH terms
Humans, Mental Health, Public Health, Volunteers, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Social Capital

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review