research volunteering

OHSU Visitors and Volunteers

• Enter keyword Search

Volunteer Opportunities in Research

Shadow opportunities restricted.

Currently, high school students and undergraduates who want to observe clinical operations and/or visit clinical areas must be a part of vetted and approved through established OHSU programs. See a list of approved programs.

The Clinical Research Investigative Studies Program (CRISP) exposes vetted pre-health students to the world of clinical research in emergency medicine through prospective ED research projects at the Marquam Hill campus. The CRISP program will give students considering potential health related careers hands on experience in the Emergency Department (ED) helping facilitate the completion of clinical research studies. The students will interact with both Emergency Department patients and research investigators. Since 2004, CRISP students have successfully screened, consented, and enrolled thousands of patients into multiples studies of varying complexity, including FDA drug and device trials, and cross-sectional and prospective survey studies.

Our CRISP students undergo hours of rigorous fundamental concepts of clinical research, confidentiality, consent and procedural skills, practice informed consent, continuous learning that provides ongoing research education including the CITI modules on Human Subjects Protection, GCPs, and HIPAA. Once trained, the CRISP student will use EPIC (the electronic health record system at OHSU) to proficiently screen all patients who come into the OHSU Emergency Department for each active study protocol.  If a patient is deemed eligible for the study, the CRISP student will inform the patient and/or the patient’s legal guardian (LAR) about the study, and proceed with the informed consent process if the patient is willing to participate.  Once the patient is consented, the CRISP students will move forward with enrollment procedures which can range clinical data abstractions, patient surveys, and/or work with the ED treatment team to collect necessary patient samples and imaging such as ECGs, blood, urine, or stool.

For more details, www.ohsu.edu/crisp  or view the CRISP information Flyer .

Commitment Requirements:

• Pre-health students, highly disciplined and motivated
• Able to commit to 2-four hour shifts (8 hours) per week for 12 weeks -then after 12 weeks able to commit to one-four hour (4 hour) shift per week – 1 year commitment
• Able to commit to 4h of mandatory office auditing shift

Eligibility :

• Pre-health students who can commit to the program for 1 year
• Excellent written and verbal communication skills
• Pre-health students who are highly motivated and detailed-oriented

Interested ? Please email [email protected] to get on the list. We will be hosting information sessions Quarterly throughout the year. To apply, www.ohsu.edu/applycrisp

The Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is looking for a volunteer to assist with clinical trials conducted by the division. Current studies include research on monitoring and treatment of pancreas divisum, pancreatic cysts, colon adenomas, abdominal pain, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, chronic pancreatitis and ulcerative colitis. 

• Primary Duties:  Volunteers will assist with recruitment and eligibility screening, consenting and enrolling participants, conducting study visits and entering data. Additional responsibilities will depend on the volunteer’s interests and the needs of the research team. 
• Commitment:  Minimum of 10 hours per week for 6 months.
• Eligibility : V olunteers should be an undergraduate student, post bac, graduate student, or medical student interested in gaining clinical-translational research experience. Must be detail oriented, organized, timely, and professional. Basic knowledge of computer application software preferred.
• Interested?   Please apply by sending a CV and cover letter explaining your interest to Heather Katcher .

The Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH) program serves youth with a range of complex medical conditions and psychosocial vulnerabilities (e.g., insufficient access to resources, mental health issues, involvement with foster care system). The NICH research team, under direction of Drs. David Wagner and Michael Harris, is evaluating the ability of NICH to meet the triple healthcare aim: improving health, improving care, and reducing medical costs. Currently we are looking for research volunteers to help with a new study assessing risk factors of poor health outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes who would be most likely to benefit from the program. This is a great educational and training opportunity for those interested in pursuing graduate study in psychology, social work, public health, pediatrics, emergency medicine, and related fields.

• Primary Duties: Research volunteers will primarily assist with participant recruitment, scheduling and tracking completion of study tasks, and medical chart review. There is also opportunity for volunteers to contribute to scientific posters and complete their own independent research project in a lab-related topic.
• Eligibility:  Must be a college junior, senior, or post bac. Must be comfortable interacting with individuals with diverse backgrounds in the hospital and community. Previous experience with adolescents and families, as well as access to reliable transportation, a plus, but not required.  
• Commitment:  Requesting a minimum commitment of 10 hours/week for 9-months.
• Interested?   Please send Sydney Melnick ( [email protected] ) and Dr. David Wagner, PhD ( [email protected] ) a letter of interest, a resume and/or vita, and the names and contacts of 2 individuals who can provide professional references.

For more information about NICH, go to: https://www.ohsu.edu/xd/health/child-development-and-rehabilitation-center/clinics-and-programs/cdrc-portland-programs/nich/

The OHSU Innovation and Commercialization internship program is an educational experience for individuals interested in technology transfer, business development, and/or patent law. Get real-world experience assisting with innovation development and the transition of technology from laboratory to market. Eligible interns can receive a monthly stipend and/or academic credit for program participation. Please note that this program is primarily remote/virtual, but interns in the Portland metro area may have the opportunity for to attend some in-person meetings.

• Commitment: An average of 8 to 10 hours per week for at least six months time. Intern performance will be assessed every three months. The program length may be extended for interns in good standing, per a formal review process.
• Eligibility: Applicants must hold a bachelor's degree in a life science, a physical science, and/or engineering; be pursuing or have received a graduate-level degree in science, medicine, engineering, business, or law; and have an interest in intellectual property, technology transfer, and/or business development as a career goal.
• Interested? Please see the OHSU Innovation and Commercialization Internship Website for application instructions. Contact Nicole Garrison ( [email protected] ) with questions.

The Oregon POLST Registry is a secure electronic record of patient’s end-of-life treatment preferences (POLST- Portable orders for life-sustaining treatment). The Registry relies on the hard work of our generous volunteers to process communication with POLST patients via mailed registration confirmation. Registry confirmation packets include a letter confirming the registrant’s information, medical orders, and other printed materials. The Registry also sends out notifications when a registrant updates their POLST orders and notifications for POLST forms that are about to expire. Volunteers will gain experience handling PHI, diversify knowledge of HIPAA compliance in a non-clinical setting, and support emergency services. The Registry team is truly grateful for the time and energy that volunteers contribute to the Registry’s mission.

• Primary Duties : Preparation of registrant confirmation packets, update letters, and 10 year expiration letters. Volunteers will additionally verify that the content of the mail is being sent to the correct person.
• Commitment : Between 2-4 hours a week for a minimum of 3 months.
• Eligibility : Volunteers must be at least 16 years old. The hours are flexible but must be completed within The Registry’s business hours – Monday through Thursday 7:30 to 4:00 PM.
• Interested? Contact: [email protected] for more information.

The Pediatric Nephrology Department is actively involved with many ongoing national clinical trials including longitudinal observation studies, rare diseases, pharmacokinetics, and investigator initiated research.

• Primary Duties: Volunteers will assist research coordinators with study visits, data collection, data entry, and other scholarly activities with opportunities for networking and participation in publications. We are recruiting volunteers who are enthusiastic about research and would like to gain experience in working with pediatric clinical trials.
• Eligibility: Completion of bachelor degree in science field is preferred but will consider exceptionally qualified applicants. Pre-medical students are encouraged to apply. Must be detail oriented, organized, timely, and professional. Basic knowledge of computer application software preferred.
• Commitment: 6-16 hours per week for least 6 months.
• Interested? Please e-mail Kira Clark at [email protected] with a CV and cover letter.

The Prenatal Environment And Child Health (PEACH) Study, under the direction of Dr. Elinor Sullivan and Dr. Joel Nigg are looking for volunteers to aid in their study. The PEACH Study is a longitudinal research study that will follow mothers from the second trimester of pregnancy until the child is 5 years of age. The purpose of this study is to learn more about how prenatal factors, such as nutrition, influence infant and toddler behavior and risk of neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD. This study will determine which prenatal factors are the strongest predictors of alterations in infant and toddler behavior associated with neurodevelopmental disorders, and set the stage for new approaches to prevent or treat child mental health problems.  

• Primary Duties : Volunteers may assist the lab with recruitment, eligibility screening, participant visits, data collection and scoring, data entry, cleaning of physiological data, coding of video taped visits, transcription of audio files and other general laboratory and administrative duties in support of the study. Specific responsibilities wi ll depend on each volunteer’s interests and strengths.  
• Com mitment : A minimum of 4 -15 hours p er week for at least 1 year.
• Eligibility : Must be a junior, senior or post bac (or have exceptional qualifications). Coursework in nutrition, infant and early life development, neurophysiology, and infant and child behavior is preferred/ beneficial. Preferred minimum G PA of 3.0. Must have some availability during the workday with the possibility of working over weekends. Must have strong interpersonal skills, be detail oriented, organized, timely , and professional. Experience working with infants and young children is preferred but not required . Previous experience of behavioral coding if preferred but not required . Basic knowledge of computer application software (SPSS, Excel) is preferred.  
• Interested? Please send your CV, your availability (days/times that you are available to volunteer) to [email protected] . If you have any questions, please contact Jessica Tipsord at [email protected] .  

PRISM research team performs phase II-IV clinical trials in pulmonary clinics and hospital settings. We have multiple ongoing clinical trials in conditions like pulmonary artery hypertension, COPD, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. We accept highly disciplined volunteers to conduct chart reviews of study subjects/patients using electronic medical records (EPIC) and enter the information in a secure database and support research coordinators. Our offices are located on the 1st floor of Emma Jones Hall, Room 121. Shadowing opportunities will be offered to our volunteers after completion of 6 months of volunteering with PRISM.

• Primary Duties : Conduct chart reviews of study subjects/patients using electronic medical records (EPIC) and enter the information in a secure database and support research coordinators.
• Commitment : Volunteers are expected to be available at least two half days (8 hours) a week for a period of 12 months.
• Eligibility : Intended for pre-medical students interested in gaining research experience before applying to medical school. International medical graduates interested in gaining experience in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials in pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine may also apply.
• Interested ? Contact: [email protected] with your resume, and a statement of interest/goals for PRISM.

For more information, visit the Division ( https://www.ohsu.edu/school-of-medicine/pulmonary-critical-care-medicine ) and the study team ( https://www.prismtrials.com/ ) websites.

Intermittent research volunteer opportunities available for motivated graduate students or advanced undergraduate students interested in conducting research with transgender and gender diverse youth and their families. Example research projects include retrospective medical chart review, measurement development (e.g., gender euphoria measure), and quality improvement related to transition from pediatric to adult healthcare. The position would be directly supervised by Danielle Moyer, PhD, assistant professor in the OHSU Department of Pediatrics and Division of Psychology.

• Must have excellent interpersonal skills
• Comfortable working in a professional and clinical environment
• Strong writing skills
• Preferably detail oriented and organized
• Familiarity with psychology, medicine, or public health
• Prior experience with youth and/or the transgender community is a plus
• Lived experience or strong allyship preferred
• Commitment: Availability for volunteering for specific projects is subject to change, and specific volunteer duties and required hours will depend on the specific project and current project status. An individualized research training experience will be established based on availability as well as volunteer’s interests and goals. Publication opportunities and/or opportunities to observe clinical care may also be available. Please note that onboarding for non-OHSU affiliated volunteers may take up to 2 months, and therefore may not be a good fit for those looking for short-term experiences. Those affiliated with OHSU may also need additional onboarding.
• Contact Information:  To inquire about current opportunities, please email Dr. Danielle Moyer at [email protected] with a brief statement of interest, availability to volunteer, and any current affiliation with OHSU. If an appropriate opportunity is available, you will be asked to provide your CV/resume and a professional/academic reference. Feel free to email for any qualifying questions or to learn more.

Pre-health (pre-nursing, pre-med, pre-PA, pre-pharmacy, etc.) undergraduate or graduate student volunteers are needed to assist the VirtuOHSU Simulation & Surgical Training Center, team in OHSU Simulation. OHSU Simulation is the health care simulation program at OHSU responsible for training a variety of health care providers in controlled and simulated environment, outside of the clinical setting. There are 3 major simulation centers on the OHSU, Portland, campus: VirtuOHSU Simulation & Surgical Training Center and Multnomah Pavilion Simulation on Marquam Hill as well as the Mark Richardson I Simulation Center in CLSB. This volunteer work would be up on Marquam Hill. 

• Primary Duties:  Duties include assisting with lab events, facilitating set up and break down of training sessions, maintenance of simulation models, administrative duties, organization of supplies, and assisting with the outreach events for surgical simulation. Volunteers work closely with medical students, residents, faculty, and OHSU Simulation Staff to accomplish the mission of OHSU Simulation. 
• Volunteer Schedule:  Flexible, Monday-Friday with variable hours between 0800-1700. Estimated 4-6 hours per week, no less than 2 hours for a day. 
• High School Diploma or equivalent 
• Must be at least 21 years of age for VirtuOHSU Simulation & Surgical Training Center 
• Must be able to show current enrollment as an undergraduate or graduate student 
• Must demonstrate excellence in verbal and written, communication, professionalism, motivation, reliability, organization, time management, and customer-service focus 
• Candidate should be able to work independently and as part of a team, effectively multi-task, be attentive to detail, and possess an aptitude for problem-solving 
• Individual must be able to lift and move 30 pounds easily as needed 
• The volunteer will be willing to work within the same lab space as animal and cadaveric tissues occasionally 
• Professional interest in medicine, health care, simulation, life sciences, and/or medical research 
• Course work in pre-health, pre-medicine or life sciences 
• Professional interest surgery (specifically for VirtuOHSU)  
• Experience in event planning 
• Interested?  Please email Cover Letter, resume, include current GPA, references, and letter of recommendation to: VirtuOHSU Simulation Center: Elena An, Operations Director OHSU Simulation at [email protected]  

Additional Details 

• Parking access on Marquam Hill/OHSU campus is extremely limited. Please be prepared to walk, bike, or use public transit to and from OHSU 
• See more information at http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/simulation-at-ohsu/ 
• It is expected that all volunteers dress in business casual attire (collared shirt, no jeans or shorts, no tennis shoes) or clean, well fit scrubs and closed toed shoes.  

Please note: In compliance with Oregon law, OHSU’s COVID-19 Immunization and Education policy will go in effect Oct. 18, 2021. Visitors and volunteers who have an in-person assignment must be fully vaccinated (defined as having received both doses of an original two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, or one dose of an original single-dose COVID-19 vaccine, and at least 14 days have passed since the individual's final dose of COVID-19 vaccine) or adhere to any requirements set forth by OHSU's Occupational Health Clinic for unvaccinated individuals.

• Clinical Trials

Volunteering

Volunteers are an integral part of the research process. People with a particular disease as well as healthy people both can play a role in contributing to medical advances. Without volunteers, clinical studies simply would not be possible.

People volunteer for clinical studies for many reasons. They may have a:

• Desire to improve medical care for future generations
• Connection to a certain disease or illness, whether through personal experience or through friends or family
• Personal interest in science

Participating is a choice

Volunteering for a clinical study is a personal choice. You have no obligation to do so, and participation is not right for everyone. After enrolling in a study, you may leave at any time for any reason.

Getting involved

• Participate in a clinical study at Mayo Clinic. By better understanding how to diagnose, treat, and prevent diseases or conditions, we help people live longer, healthier lives. Researchers need volunteers for a broad range of clinical studies. Find a clinical study .
• Connect with us. Eligibility requirements vary for each study and determine the criteria for participation. There is no guarantee that every individual who qualifies and wants to participate in a trial will be enrolled. Connect with the study staff directly as they are in the best position to answer questions and provide specific information regarding eligibility and possible participation. Contact information is found in each study listing.
• Join a national research volunteer registry. Health research changes peoples’ lives every day, but many studies end early because there are not enough volunteers. Researchers need both healthy people and those with all types of conditions. Funded by the National Institutes of Health, ResearchMatch is a first-of-its-kind registry that connects research volunteers with researchers across the country. Sign up at ResearchMatch.org .

Making an informed decision

• Informed consent. Before deciding to participate in a study, you will be asked to review an informational document called an informed consent form. This form will provide key facts about the study so that you can decide if participating is right for you. You must sign the informed consent form in order to participate in the study, though it is not a contract — you may still choose to leave the study at any time.
• Risks and benefits. All medical research involves some level of risk to participants. Risks and benefits vary depending on the particular study. To help you make an informed decision, the study team is required to tell you about all known risks, benefits and available alternative health care options.
• Ask questions. If you have questions when deciding to join a research study or at any time during it, ask a member of the study team. If your questions or concerns are not satisfactorily addressed, contact the study's principal investigator, the Mayo Clinic research subject advocate or the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Protecting rights and safety

An independent group, the Mayo Clinic IRB , oversees all Mayo clinical studies that involve people, ensuring research is conducted safely and ethically. Members of the Mayo Clinic IRB include doctors, scientists, nurses and people from the local community.

In addition, Mayo Clinic has a research subject advocate who is independent of all clinical studies and is a resource for research participants. Contact the research subject advocate by email or at 507-266-9372 with questions, concerns and ideas for improving research practices.

Participation costs

Clinical studies may involve billable services and insurance coverage varies by provider.

Clinical studies questions

• Phone: 800-664-4542 (toll-free)
• Contact form

Cancer-related clinical studies questions

• Phone: 855-776-0015 (toll-free)

International patient clinical studies questions

• Phone: 507-284-8884
• Email: [email protected]

Clinical Studies in Depth

Learning all you can about clinical studies helps you prepare to participate.

Diversity in Clinical Trials

Mayo Clinic is keeping diversity and inclusion in focus for all clinical trials and addressing barriers to enrollment.

• Institutional Review Board

The Institutional Review Board protects the rights, privacy, and welfare of participants in research programs conducted by Mayo Clinic and its associated faculty, professional staff, and students.

More about research at Mayo Clinic

• Research Faculty
• Laboratories
• Core Facilities
• Centers & Programs
• Departments & Divisions
• Postdoctoral Fellowships
• Training Grant Programs
• Publications

Mayo Clinic Footer

• Request Appointment
• About Mayo Clinic
• About This Site

Legal Conditions and Terms

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Notice of Privacy Practices
• Notice of Nondiscrimination
• Manage Cookies

Advertising

Mayo Clinic is a nonprofit organization and proceeds from Web advertising help support our mission. Mayo Clinic does not endorse any of the third party products and services advertised.

• Advertising and sponsorship policy
• Advertising and sponsorship opportunities

Reprint Permissions

A single copy of these materials may be reprinted for noncommercial personal use only. "Mayo," "Mayo Clinic," "MayoClinic.org," "Mayo Clinic Healthy Living," and the triple-shield Mayo Clinic logo are trademarks of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

About Research Participation

Resources for the public to learn about participating in research and making informed decisions.

Welcome! The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) works to protect the rights, welfare, and wellbeing of volunteers who participate in research supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). One way to further this mission is to provide the public with basic information about research and research participation, so potential volunteers can make informed decisions about participating in research.

Learning about research participation can be challenging. OHRP developed and compiled these resources to help you make the best decisions for you and your loved ones. They answer some common questions and suggest other questions you may want to ask if you are considering participating in research. These materials also may be used by research staff to facilitate and improve the informed consent process.

Check out the links below to watch informational videos, view a list of questions to ask researchers, and find additional resources related to research participation.

These materials are intended for public use and distribution, and we invite you to use and share them freely.

We welcome institutions and companies to link to our About Research Participation (ARP) resources on their websites. Institutions must post links in a such a manner that the audience does not mistake the linking to ARP resources as an endorsement of the institution or company, including its activities, products, services, or facilities, by OHRP, HHS, or the United States Government.

Informational Videos

Watch short videos to learn more about participating in human research

Questions to Ask

View and print questions to ask researchers if you’re considering volunteering for a research study

Protecting Research Volunteers

Learn about the regulations that protect research volunteers

Additional Resources

Access additional resources about human subjects research

Printable Information Materials

Access our library of printable informational materials from the About Research Participation collection. We invite you to print and share them freely

Get a Web Button

Download and post a web button on your website to link to our About Research Participation resources for the general public.

• Department of Health and Human Services
• National Institutes of Health

Program for Healthy Volunteers

What is the clinical research volunteer program (crvp).

Since 1954, the NIH Clinical Center, through the Clinical Research Volunteer Program, has provided an opportunity for healthy volunteers–local, national, and international–to participate in medical research studies (sometimes called protocols or trials). Healthy volunteers provide researchers with important information for comparison with people who have specific illnesses. Every year, nearly 3,500 healthy volunteers participate in studies at NIH.

<< Back to Top >>

What are the benefits of volunteering to take part in clinical research?

Healthy volunteers who take part in clinical research studies at NIH may:

• Receive a thorough physical exam (in some studies)
• Receive compensation for taking part in a study
• Further medical knowledge
• Have the satisfaction of helping someone suffering from a chronic, serious, or life-threatening illness
• Provide important scientific information for developing new disease treatments

Will I be compensated?

The NIH compensates study participants for their time and, in some instances, for the inconvenience of a procedure. There are standard compensation rates for the participant's time; the study's principal investigator determines inconvenience rates. NIH reports compensation of $600 or more to the Internal Revenue Service and sends a "Form 1099-Other Income" to the participant at the end of the year. Please be aware that some or all of that compensation may be garnished if the participant has outstanding debts to the federal or state government.

What kinds of clinical studies are available?

There are about 300 studies available to healthy volunteers. You can find information on these studies on the Clinical Center's home page under Search the Studies . Type in the keywords: healthy and normal.

Studies for both inpatients and outpatients vary in length of time, location (onsite at the NIH Clinical Center, the NIH hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, or at off-site facilities in other areas), age, gender, special requirements, medical exclusions, and procedures. You select the studies that interest you the most and for which you think you would qualify.

Are there any risks?

The NIH staff will explain any risks, requirements, restrictions, or possible side effects before you agree to take part in any study. It is wise and important that you ask them any questions or voice any concerns before you make a decision about taking part.

How are studies approved for volunteer participation?

Before a study is approved for volunteer participation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviews and approves any that involve an investigational drug. If the study involves radiation, the NIH Radiation Safety Committee must review and approve it. These reviews and approvals must take place before any volunteer is invited to participate in a research study.

In addition, physicians, scientists, and lay people rigorously screen all studies for safety, ethics, and need. The clinical director of the supporting institute, that institute's Institutional Review Board, and the Clinical Center director are among with approval authority for each study.

How can I volunteer?

One way to volunteer is to join the registry for the Clinical Research Volunteer Program (CRVP). The CRVP, created in 1995, is a resource that helps match potential research volunteers to clinical research studies at the NIH Clinical Center. To participate in the registry, we'll ask you to provide some basic information and give us permission to share that information with the research teams. If you are a potential match to a study's requirements, the study team will contact you.

How do I enroll myself or my child?

You can contact us at 301-496-4763. Parents or guardians must call to register anyone under 18 years of age.

How can I find studies currently recruiting volunteers?

You can find information about research studies currently recruiting volunteers by viewing the clinical studies website . When searching the web site, type in these words: healthy volunteers and normal volunteers. Call (301) 496-4763 or toll free 1-800-892-3276 for more information.

To determine your eligibility for a study, you may need to complete medical questionnaire forms. An NIH staff member will ask you additional questions. It is critical that you are honest and thorough in providing information about your medical and psychiatric history and about any prescription or nonprescription drugs you take. Accurate information allows investigators to judge whether the study poses any risk to you. You also must let the investigator know of your participation in any other research studies--past, present, or planned.

Before agreeing to participate in any study, the investigator will give you a consent form that explains the study in detail and in everyday, non-medical language. By signing this form, you indicate that you understand the study and volunteer to participate. As a volunteer, you are free to withdraw from, interrupt, or refuse to take part in a study at any time.

NOTE: PDF documents require the free Adobe Reader .

This page last updated on 02/13/2024

You are now leaving the NIH Clinical Center website.

This external link is provided for your convenience to offer additional information. The NIH Clinical Center is not responsible for the availability, content or accuracy of this external site.

The NIH Clinical Center does not endorse, authorize or guarantee the sponsors, information, products or services described or offered at this external site. You will be subject to the destination site’s privacy policy if you follow this link.

More information about the NIH Clinical Center Privacy and Disclaimer policy is available at https://www.cc.nih.gov/disclaimers.html

• Department of Health and Human Services
• National Institutes of Health

FAQs About Clinical Studies

If you are in the process of learning about clinical trials or are considering participating in one, you may be interested in reviewing our Are Clinical Studies for You? page. In addition, we encourage anyone with questions to call the Patient Recruitment Office at 1-800-411-1222 . You may also want to try the " Topics A-Z " tool, an alphabetical index to all visitor- and patient-related subject areas.

• What are clinical studies?

Clinical studies are research studies in which real people participate as volunteers. Clinical research studies are a means of improving our understanding of disease, such as in observational studies, or developing new treatments and medications for diseases and conditions, such as clinical trials, which are evaluating the effects of a biomedical or behavioral intervention on health outcomes. There are strict rules for clinical trials, which are monitored by the National Institutes of Health for the trials it funds, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration more broadly. Some of the research studies at the Clinical Center involve promising new treatments that may directly benefit patients. Understanding Clinical Studies .

• Why should I participate?

The health of millions has been improved because of advances in science and technology, and the willingness of thousands of individuals like you to take part in clinical research. The role of volunteer subjects as partners in clinical research is crucial in the quest for knowledge that will improve the health of future generations. Without your help, the research studies at the Clinical Center cannot be accomplished.

• Will I be compensated?

The NIH may compensate study participants for their time and, in some instances, for the inconvenience of a procedure. There are standard compensation rates for the participant's time; the study's principal investigator determines inconvenience rates.

NIH reports compensation of $600 or more to the Internal Revenue Service and sends a "Form 1099-Other Income" to the participant at the end of the year.

Please be aware that, under U.S. law, some or all of that compensation may be garnished by the U.S. Treasury if the participant has outstanding debts to the federal or state government. The NIH does not have any way of knowing if a volunteer has an outstanding debt to the government and is not told when the U.S. Treasury garnishes compensation. The U.S. Treasury will notify the payee directly in this circumstance.

• What is a "healthy volunteer"?

A volunteer subject with no known significant health problems who participates in research to test a new drug, device, or intervention is known as a "healthy volunteer" or "Clinical Research Volunteer." The clinical research volunteer may be a member of the community, an NIH investigator or other employee, or family members of a patient volunteer. Research procedures with these volunteers are designed to develop new knowledge, not to provide direct benefit to study participants. Clinical research volunteers have always played a vital role in medical research. We need to study healthy volunteers for several reasons: When developing a new technique such as a blood test or imaging device, we need clinical research volunteers to help us define the limits of "normal." These volunteers are recruited to serve as controls for patient groups. They are often matched to patients on such characteristics as age, gender, or family relationship. They are then given the same test, procedure, or drug the patient group receives. Investigators learn about the disease process by comparing the patient group to the clinical research volunteers.

• What are Phase I, Phase II and Phase III studies?

The phase 1 study is used to learn the "maximum tolerated dose" of a drug that does not produce unacceptable side effects. Patient volunteers are followed primarily for side effects, and not for how the drug affects their disease. The first few volunteer subjects receive low doses of the trial drug to see how the drug is tolerated and to learn how it acts in the body. The next group of volunteer subjects receives larger amounts. Phase 1 studies typically offer little or no benefit to the volunteer subjects.

The phase 2 study involves a drug whose dose and side effects are well known. Many more volunteer subjects are tested, to define side effects, learn how it is used in the body, and learn how it helps the condition under study. Some volunteer subjects may benefit from a phase 2 study.

The phase 3 study compares the new drug against a commonly used drug. Some volunteer subjects will be given the new drug and some the commonly used drug. The trial is designed to find where the new drug fits in managing a particular condition. Determining the true benefit of a drug in a clinical trial is difficult.

• What is a placebo?

Placebos are harmless, inactive substances made to look like the real medicine used in the clinical trial. Placebos allow the investigators to learn whether the medicine being given works better or no better than ordinary treatment. In many studies, there are successive time periods, with either the placebo or the real medicine. In order not to introduce bias, the patient, and sometimes the staff, are not told when or what the changes are. If a placebo is part of a study, you will always be informed in the consent form given to you before you agree to take part in the study. When you read the consent form, be sure that you understand what research approach is being used in the study you are entering.

• What is the placebo effect?

Medical research is dogged by the placebo effect - the real or apparent improvement in a patient's condition due to wishful thinking by the investigator or the patient. Medical techniques use three ways to rid clinical trials of this problem. These methods have helped discredit some previously accepted treatments and validate new ones. Methods used are the following: randomization, single-blind or double-blind studies, and the use of a placebo.

• What is randomization?

Randomization is when two or more alternative treatments are selected by chance, not by choice. The treatment chosen is given with the highest level of professional care and expertise, and the results of each treatment are compared. Analyses are done at intervals during a trial, which may last years. As soon as one treatment is found to be definitely superior, the trial is stopped. In this way, the fewest number of patients receive the less beneficial treatment.

• What are single-blind and double-blind studies?

In single- or double-blind studies, the participants don't know which medicine is being used, and they can describe what happens without bias. Blind studies are designed to prevent anyone (doctors, nurses, or patients) from influencing the results. This allows scientifically accurate conclusions. In single-blind ("single-masked") studies, only the patient is not told what is being given. In a double-blind study, only the pharmacist knows; the doctors, nurses, patients, and other health care staff are not informed. If medically necessary, however, it is always possible to find out what the patient is taking.

• Are there risks involved in participating in clinical research?

Risks are involved in clinical research, as in routine medical care and activities of daily living. In thinking about the risks of research, it is helpful to focus on two things: the degree of harm that could result from taking part in the study, and the chance of any harm occurring. Most clinical studies pose risks of minor discomfort, lasting only a short time. Some volunteer subjects, however, experience complications that require medical attention. The specific risks associated with any research protocol are described in detail in the consent document, which you are asked to sign before taking part in research. In addition, the major risks of participating in a study will be explained to you by a member of the research team, who will answer your questions about the study. Before deciding to participate, you should carefully weigh these risks. Although you may not receive any direct benefit as a result of participating in research, the knowledge developed may help others.

• What safeguards are there to protect participants in clinical research?

The following section describes safeguards that protect the safety and rights of volunteer subjects. These safeguards include:

• The Protocol Review Process
• Informed Consent Procedures
• The Patient Representative
• The Patient Bill of Rights

Protocol review. As in any medical research facility, all new protocols produced at NIH must be approved by an institutional review board (IRB) before they can begin. The IRB, which consists of medical specialists, statisticians, nurses, social workers, and medical ethicists, is the advocate of the volunteer subject. The IRB will only approve protocols that address medically important questions in a scientific and responsible manner.

Informed consent. Your participation in any Clinical Center research protocol is voluntary. For every study in which you intend to participate, you will receive a document called "Consent to Participate in a Clinical Research Study" that explains the study in straightforward language. A member of the research team will discuss the protocol with you, explain its details, and answer your questions. Reading and understanding the protocol is your responsibility. You may discuss the protocol with family and friends. You will not be hurried into making a decision, and you will be asked to sign the document only after you understand the nature of the protocol and agree to the commitment. At any time after signing the protocol, you are free to change your mind and decide not to participate further. This means that you are free to withdraw from the study completely, or to refuse particular treatments or tests. Sometimes, however, this will make you ineligible to continue the study. If you are no longer eligible or no longer wish to continue the study, you will return to the care of the doctor who referred you to NIH.

Patient representative.  The Patient Representative acts as a link between the patient and the hospital. The Patient Representative makes every effort to assure that patients are informed of their rights and responsibilities, and that they understand what the Clinical Center is, what it can offer, and how it operates. We realize that this setting is unique and may generate questions about the patient's role in the research process. As in any large and complex system, communication can be a problem and misunderstandings can occur. If any patient has an unanswered question or feels there is a problem they would like to discuss, they can call the Patient Representative.

Bill of Rights. Finally, whether you are a clinical research or a patient volunteer subject, you are protected by the Clinical Center Patients' Bill of Rights. This document is adapted from the one made by the American Hospital Association for use in all hospitals in the country. The bill of rights concerns the care you receive, privacy, confidentiality, and access to medical records.

NOTE: PDF documents require the free Adobe Reader .

This page last updated on 02/13/2024

You are now leaving the NIH Clinical Center website.

This external link is provided for your convenience to offer additional information. The NIH Clinical Center is not responsible for the availability, content or accuracy of this external site.

The NIH Clinical Center does not endorse, authorize or guarantee the sponsors, information, products or services described or offered at this external site. You will be subject to the destination site’s privacy policy if you follow this link.

More information about the NIH Clinical Center Privacy and Disclaimer policy is available at https://www.cc.nih.gov/disclaimers.html

Your browser is unsupported

We recommend using the latest version of IE11, Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Center for Clinical and Translational Science

For volunteers, researchers need your help consider joining researchmatch.org today, why should you consider joining heading link copy link.

Research affects our everyday lives – ranging from the medicine we take to the health of our families.  Becoming a research participant is a gift you give of yourself to benefit your family, your community and the health of people everywhere. Research needs Healthy Volunteers as well as those with medical conditions.  All too often important research studies end early because there are too few research participants in the study. At the same time, people are looking for research studies but are having difficult time finding them. As a result, important questions that can affect the health of our community go unanswered. ResearchMatch helps this problem by connecting people who want to participate in studies get connected with the research studies that may be a good ‘match’ for them through its secure, online matching tool.

Who can join? Heading link Copy link

Anyone from the United States can join ResearchMatch regardless of age, ethnicity or health conditions. Volunteers needing assistance and volunteers under the age of 18 may ask a guardian to register on their behalf. Many studies are looking for healthy people of all ages, while some are looking for people with specific health conditions.

How do I join? Heading link Copy link

Go to www.researchmatch.org .  It takes between 5-10 minutes to register and anyone residing in the United States can join.  You will first answer some basic information about who you are and then have the option of entering in some information about your health.

There is no cost to register as a ResearchMatch Volunteer and all ages and backgrounds are welcome to register.  A parent, legal guardian or caretaker may register someone under the age of 19 or an adult that may not be able to enter in their own information.   When you become a ResearchMatch Volunteer, you join a pool of thousands of other people across the country that are willing to hear about research studies that might be a good fit for them.

What will happen when I join? Heading link Copy link

After you register, your anonymous (unidentified) ResearchMatch Volunteer profile will become part of a national registry pool.

Approved ResearchMatch researchers search the registry by entering in IRB (Institutional Review Board) approved specific study criteria (age, gender, condition of interest, etc.) to find possible matches for their studies. ResearchMatch then sends an email about a researcher’s study to the ResearchMatch Volunteers who appear to be a good fit for their study.

While the researcher knows that you may be a good match for their study, they do not know who you are until you allow them to see your contact information. If the study is something that the volunteer wishes to learn more about, the Volunteer (you) allow ResearchMatch to release your contact information to the researcher so you can be directly contact by the researcher about the study.

The Volunteer can choose to be part of the study or be removed from a study at any time. The choice is always up to the Volunteer.

And that is how the wonderful ResearchMatch “match” is made!

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

• About our agency home
• Organization
• NOAA organization chart
• Office of Communications
• Office of Education
• The Interagency Meteorological Coordination Office
• Office of General Counsel
• Office of International Affairs
• Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
• Acquisition and Grants Office
• Office of the Chief Administrative Officer
• Office of the Chief Financial Officer
• Office of Human Capital Services
• Office of the Chief Information Officer
• Office of Inclusion and Civil Rights
• National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
• National Marine Fisheries Service
• National Ocean Service
• National Weather Service
• Office of Marine & Aviation Operations
• Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric Research
• Staff Directory
• Mission & vision
• America the Beautiful
• Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
• NOAA Heritage
• NOAA Service Delivery Framework
• NOAA in your state
• New Blue Economy
• Offshore wind energy
• Regional Collaboration Network
• Budget, strategy & performance
• Budget & finance information
• NOAA FY22-26 Strategic Plan
• Work with us
• Commitment to our veterans
• Contracts & grant opportunities
• EEO Policy Statement
• Hiring individuals with disabilities
• Partnership Policy

Volunteer opportunities

• Professional Mariner Career Opportunities

Observe your world. Help the planet. Be a citizen scientist for NOAA.

Help NOAA predict, observe and protect our changing planet by making your own contributions toward a greater understanding of our Earth and its diverse systems. Whether it’s helping count whales in Hawaii or reporting on weather right outside your window, we’ve got a volunteer opportunity for you.

We work with a diverse set of partners to coordinate the citizen science opportunities we offer. See these links below for some of our citizen science programs  or search the CitizenScience.gov opportunities catalog  to find both national and local NOAA volunteer opportunities.

Trained storm spotters and weather observers support NOAA’s mission of climate monitoring and protecting life and property through accurate weather and water forecasts and warnings.

• SKYWARN® Storm Spotter:  Help keep your community safe by volunteering to become a trained severe storm spotter for NOAA's National Weather Service. There is even an easy-to-use online community reporting tool,  NWS StormReporter , which promotes the rapid delivery of coastal storm damage information to emergency management personnel and others across New England.
• Daily Weather Observer:  Join a national network of  Cooperative Observer Program  (COOP) volunteers who record and report weather and climate observations to the National Weather Service on a daily basis over the phone or Internet. The National Weather Service provides training, equipment, and additional support through equipment maintenance and site visits. Not only does the data support daily weather forecasts and warnings, but they also contributed toward building the nation’s historic climate record.
• If you like to track rain, hail and snow, you may want to join the  Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow Network offsite link  (CoCoRaHS),   a   nationwide community-based network of volunteers who measure and help map precipitation. 
• NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory has a similar program, the Precipitation Identification Near the Ground project (mPING) , where you can report on the type of — but you do not need to measure — precipitation you are encountering at any given time or location. mPING volunteers can spend a little or a lot of time making and recording ground truth observations using the mPING project website or mobile phone app. 

Climate and Earth observations

Contribute data to NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. NCEI provide access to one of the most significant archives on Earth of comprehensive oceanic, atmospheric and geophysical data.

• CrowdMag app : You can help chart Earth’s magnetic field with your smartphone! After installing the CrowdMag app (Android and iPhone), your phone will automatically send NCEI the data collected from its magnetometer from a sensor already in your phone. The CrowdMag app measures the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field around you. Scientists use observatories, satellites and ship/airborne surveys to track the changes in the magnetic field, but due to gaps in coverage, they are always looking for additional ways to obtain that data. Using the CrowdMag app can help scientists improve magnetic navigation, as well as our understanding of Earth’s magnetic field. 

Engage in NOAA’s management of living marine resources through conservation and the promotion of healthy ecosystems.

• Hawaiian Green Sea Turtle Guardian :  Protect sea turtles and educate the public on respectful wildlife viewing.
• Dolphin & Whale 911 App: Report dead, injured or entangled marine mammals in the Southeastern U.S.  This free apps allows for accurate and timely reporting.

Delve into NOAA’s pursuit to observe, understand, and manage our nation's coastal and marine resources. Opportunities include:

• National Estuarine Reserve Volunteer :  Event coordinators, research assistants, and educators are just some of the many more ways you can help NOAA in protecting our nation's coastal protected areas.
• Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project Participant :  Support coastal marine debris monitoring efforts used by researchers and NOAA’s Marine Debris Program to assess the impacts and risk posed by marine debris. 
• Phytoplankton Monitoring Network: This NOAA initiative promotes a better understanding of harmful algal blooms with help from volunteers who sample local waters twice a month and identify the phytoplankton found.

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary System

Help NOAA Sanctuaries serve as the trustee for a network of underwater parks encompassing more than 600,000 square miles. There are myriad opportunities to do so, including:

Whale Alert offsite link : Whale Alert is a free smart phone app that allows mariners and the public to help decrease the risk of injury or death to whales from ship strikes. Whale Alert depends on your increased participation and willingness to contribute observations taken while whale watching from land and at sea along the coast.

LiMPETS offsite link : Teachers, students and community groups along the coast of California collect rocky intertidal and sandy beach data in the name of science and help to protect our local marine ecosystems.

• Sanctuary Ocean Count: Help collect important population and distribution information on humpback whales around the Hawaiian Islands.

NOAA Sea Grant

Partner with the nation’s top universities in conducting scientific research, education, training, and extension projects within coastal communities. Opportunities include:

Delaware’s Citizen Monitoring Program offsite link : Collect verifiable water quality data to support public policy decisions.  This program also aims to increase public participation and support for the protection of Delaware’s water resources. 

Red Tide Rangers: offsite link Monitor for the presence of Karenia brevis, a common microscopic, single-celled, photosynthetic organism found in Gulf of Mexico waters that releases toxins known to harm wildlife and people on land and at sea. K. brevis can "bloom" and cause significant discoloration of Gulf and bay waters, commonly known as a “red tide.”

Maine’s Beach Profile Monitoring: offsite link Join 150 community and school volunteers to measure changes in the distribution of sand on the beach. Tracking these changes over long periods (as they have done for 15 years) provides Maine Geological Survey with data to identify seasonal, annual, and even track long-term trends in beach erosion and accretion.

Thank you for your interest in helping advance our mission — we hope you'll volunteer as a NOAA citizen scientist today! 

NOAA Fisheries

• Cooperative Shark Tagging Program :   The Cooperative Shark Tagging Program is a collaborative effort between recreational anglers, the commercial fishing industry, and NOAA Fisheries to learn more about Atlantic sharks.  It is the longest running shark tagging program in the world and NOAA Fisheries' oldest citizen science program.  Found a tag or want to get involved?  
• California Collaborative Fisheries Research Program offsite link :  The California Collaborative Fisheries Research Program is a community-based science program involving university researchers, sportfishing captains and crew, volunteer anglers, and partnerships with conservation and resource management agencies like NOAA Fisheries. Together, this group conducts research to evaluate Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), the status of nearshore fish stocks, and how climate change is impacting marine resources in California.
• Honu Count : Help NOAA track Hawaiian green sea turtles (also called honu) by  reporting offsite link  the locations of marked turtles. This data helps NOAA better understand honu habitat use patterns, migration, distribution, and survival. 
• OceanEYEs offsite link :  Help NOAA count fish and improve data used in management of the Hawaiʻi “Deep 7” bottomfish fishery from the comfort of your own home. By analyzing underwater images you will be helping train machine vision algorithms and improving fish stock assessments to help manage these species.

Advertisement

Exploring the Effects of Volunteering on the Social, Mental, and Physical Health and Well-being of Volunteers: An Umbrella Review

• RESEARCH PAPER
• Open access
• Published: 04 May 2023
• Volume 35 , pages 97–128, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Beth Nichol   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7642-1448 1 ,
• Rob Wilson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0469-1884 2 ,
• Angela Rodrigues   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5064-8006 3 &
• Catherine Haighton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8061-0428 1  

7967 Accesses

5 Citations

238 Altmetric

31 Mentions

Explore all metrics

Volunteering provides unique benefits to organisations, recipients, and potentially the volunteers themselves. This umbrella review examined the benefits of volunteering and their potential moderators. Eleven databases were searched for systematic reviews on the social, mental, physical, or general health benefits of volunteering, published up to July 2022. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess quality and overlap of included primary studies was calculated. Twenty-eight reviews were included; participants were mainly older adults based in the USA. Although overlap between reviews was low, quality was generally poor. Benefits were found in all three domains, with reduced mortality and increased functioning exerting the largest effects. Older age, reflection, religious volunteering, and altruistic motivations increased benefits most consistently. Referral of social prescribing clients to volunteering is recommended. Limitations include the need to align results to research conducted after the COVID-19 pandemic. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022349703).

Similar content being viewed by others

A Rapid Review of Barriers to Volunteering for Potentially Disadvantaged Groups and Implications for Health Inequalities

Kris Southby, Jane South & Anne-Marie Bagnall

Does volunteering improve the psychosocial well-being of volunteers?

Tai-Wen Chew, Corrine S.-L. Ong, … Eddie M. W. Tong

Volunteer Retirement and Well-being: Evidence from Older Adult Volunteers

Allison R. Russell, Melissa A. Heinlein Storti & Femida Handy

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Social prescribing is a person-centred approach involving referral to non-clinical services including those within the third sector (Public Health England, 2019 ), which describes groups or organisations operating independently to government, where social justice is the primary goal (Salamon & Sokolowski, 2016 ). It is an intervention that directs patients with non-medical health needs away from healthcare and towards social means of addressing their needs (Muhl et al., 2022 ), such as support with the social determinants of health including finance and housing, activities around art and creativity, and exercise (Thomson et al., 2015 ). Social prescribing can also involve referring clients to engage in volunteering (Thomson et al., 2015 ; Tierney et al., 2022 ), defined as unpaid work or activity to benefit others outside of the family or household, in which the individual freely chooses to participate (Salamon & Sokolowski, 2016 ). Volunteering, also known as community service in the USA, can be regular and sustained or ad hoc and short term (episodic) (Macduff, 2005 ) and encompasses activity directed towards helping others (civic) (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ), environmental conservation (environmental) (Husk et al., 2016 ), and as part of education (service learning), often accompanied by structured reflection of the voluntary activity (Conway et al., 2009 ).

Unique to other referrals within social prescribing, volunteering may provide a twofold benefit. Volunteering provides clear economic benefits to organisations (NCVO, 2021a ) and acts as a ‘bridge’ of welfare services to deprived communities (South et al., 2011 ). There are also distinct benefits for recipients in comparison with professional help including increased sense of participation, self-esteem and self-efficacy, and reduced loneliness, due to a more neutral and reciprocal relationship (Grönlund & Falk, 2019 ). As utilised by social prescribing, volunteering as an intervention in itself is supported by clear health benefits to the volunteer, particularly improved mental health and reduced mortality (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ). There are many primary studies which find significant positive effects of volunteering on social, physical and mental health, including mortality and health behaviours (Casiday et al., 2008 ; Linning & Volunteering, 2018 ). Furthermore, there is evidence that these benefits occur from adolescence across the lifespan (Mateiu-Vescan et al., 2021 ; Piliavin, 2010 ), although they may increase with age (Piliavin, 2010 ). However, due to the poor quality of this evidence, it is unclear which of the benefits, particularly concerning mental health, predict rather than result from volunteering (Stuart et al., 2020 ; Thoits & Hewitt, 2001 ).

An investigation of the benefits of volunteering can therefore inform on the utility of this practice in improving the health and well-being of clients (Tierney et al., 2022 ) and support a twofold benefit (Mateiu-Vescan et al., 2021 ). Also, establishing the benefits may help retain volunteers within organisations (Mateiu-Vescan et al., 2021 ), as low volunteer retention (Chen et al., 2020 ) has been a key debated issue (Snyder & Omoto, 2008 ; Studer & Schnurbein 2023 ), with suggested solutions including maintaining motivation through opportunities for evaluation and self-development (Snyder & Omoto, 2008 ), improved management of volunteers (Studer & Schnurbein 2023 ), and recognising their value (Studer & Schnurbein 2023 ). However, outcomes of volunteering such as self-efficacy (Harp et al., 2017 ) and sense of connection (Dunn et al., 2021 ) have also been shown to predict retention.

An umbrella review methodology is appropriate to provide a systematic and comprehensive overview of the vast evidence on the benefits of volunteering and to determine which are most supported, making clear and accessible recommendations for research and policy (Pollock et al., 2020 ). An umbrella review can also help establish what works, where, and for whom, through comparison of different settings, volunteering roles, and populations from systematic reviews with different focuses (Smith et al., 2011 ). Thus, it is important that an exploration of the benefits of volunteering consider potential moderators. Umbrella reviews also assess the quality of the included systematic reviews and weight findings accordingly (Smith et al., 2011 ), which may help to establish a causal influence of volunteering. The emerging use of an umbrella review methodology in third sector research has enabled clear recommendations for practice, exploration of moderators and mediators, identification of gaps in the research, and recommendations for future reviews (Saeri et al., 2022 ; Woldie et al., 2018 ).

The aims of this umbrella review were to;

Assess the effects of volunteering on the social, mental and physical health and well-being of volunteers, and;

Investigate the interactions between outcomes and other factors as moderators or mediators of any identified effects.

Establishing clear conclusions to these aims helped identify gaps in the literature to direct future research and provided directions to support research and implementation of interventions involving volunteers. Specific outcomes explored within this review are displayed in Fig.  1 .

Outcomes identified and analysed within the current umbrella review, grouped by coding of outcome

This umbrella review was pre-registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (Nichol et al., 2022 ) following scoping searches but prior to the formal research (registration number: CRD42022349703). Reporting of the umbrella review methodology followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) (Page et al., 2020 ). Prior to formulating the research question, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Systematic Review Register, and the Open Science Framework Registry were checked for pre-registrations of umbrella reviews of the same or a similar topic. No such umbrella review protocols were retrieved.

Inclusion Criteria

Intervention: volunteering.

Volunteering was defined as conducting work or activity without payment, for those outside of the family or household. Participants of all ages were included. There were no limits by country or organisation or group that the volunteering was for. Although part of the definition of volunteering is that it is sustained (Salamon & Sokolowski, 2016 ), all durations of volunteering were included in this review to ensure a comprehensive search. Additionally, only reviews of volunteering involving some interpersonal contact with other volunteers or recipients were included. Reviews of volunteering in disaster settings such as warzones and aid for natural disasters were excluded, as these represent volunteering in extreme circumstances that is unusual and highly stressful (Thormar et al., 2010 ).

Systematic reviews were required to investigate the effect of volunteering on the volunteer. Reviews were excluded if volunteering was a component of a wider intervention. Reviews only assessing the effect of volunteering on the recipient were also excluded. The distinction between volunteer and recipient was sometimes less clear for reviews assessing the effect of intergenerational programmes. In this case, outcomes were only extracted for the group(s) that were performing work or activity, and no data was extracted from primary studies where neither group were.

The outcome of interest was health and well-being. This was categorised into general, psychological, physical, and social. Of additional interest was the interaction between these effects and with other factors such as demographics or factors associated with volunteering such as duration and type. Outcomes could be self-reported, or objective for physical outcomes (e.g. body mass index (BMI)). Reviews that did not assess effect were excluded, such as those exploring implementation, feasibility, or acceptability of volunteering as an intervention.

Types of Studies

The focus of this umbrella review was on systematic reviews of quantitative studies with or without meta-analyses to assess effect, although reviews of mostly quantitative studies were also included. The adopted definition of a systematic review was a documented systematic search of more than one academic database. Primary studies, reviews of qualitative or mostly qualitative literature, opinion pieces and commentaries were excluded.

Search Strategy

The search was conducted on the 28th July 2022 via 11 databases including EPISTEMONIKOS, Cochrane Database, and PsychARTICLES, ASSIA and the Health Research Premium collection via ProQuest (Consumer Health Database, Health & Medical Collection, Healthcare Administration Database, MEDLINE®, Nursing & Allied Health Database, Psychology Database and Public Health Database). The search was applied to title and abstract and restricted to peer-reviewed systematic reviews published in English, as all reviewers were English language speakers with no translation services available. Initial scoping searches helped to build the search strategy (Supplementary Material 1). To maximise scope, forward and backward citation searching was applied, and the results of scoping searches and further sources such as colleagues and other academics were combined into the final umbrella review.

Study Selection

Search results were exported via a RIS file and uploaded onto Rayyan for screening. Reviewer BN screened all reviews by title and abstract against the inclusion criteria, before screening the remaining (not previously excluded) articles based on full text. Details on independent screening and inter-rater reliability are available in Supplementary material 2.

Quality Appraisal

Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist (Shea et al., 2021 ), which is designed to assess the quality of quantitative systematic reviews of healthcare interventions (Shea et al., 2021 ) and has the highest validity in comparison to other quality assessment tools (Gianfredi et al., 2022 ). Also, the accompanying guidance sheet ensures consistent use across reviewers. The 16 checklist items are presented under Table 1 . Further details on quality appraisal for both the included reviews and primary included studies are available in Supplementary Material 3.

Data extraction and Synthesis

The data extraction form was created with guidance from Cochrane (Pollock et al., 2020 ). To increase transparency, data extraction was completed via SRDR plus, and made publicly available ( https://srdrplus.ahrq.gov//projects/3274 ). Further information on data extraction, including on inter-rater agreement, is available in Supplementary Material 4.

Data Analysis

The strategy of summarising rather than re-analysing the data of the reviews was adopted (Pollock et al., 2020 ). Vote counting by direction of effect was applied (McKenzie & Brennan, 2019 ), relying on the reporting of included systematic reviews. Variables were formed to allow for votes to be counted across reviews (e.g. self-esteem, self-efficacy and pride and empowerment were collapsed due to them regularly being combined by reviews). To test for significance, a two-tailed binomial test was applied with the null assumption that positive effects were of a 50% proportion (McKenzie & Brennan, 2019 ). Given that vote counting does not indicate magnitude of effect, results of meta-analyses are also presented. To estimate the degree of overlap of primary studies between the included reviews, the equation for calculated covered area (CCA) (Pieper et al., 2014 ) was applied. To prevent underestimating overlap, only primary studies addressing the effect of volunteering on the health of the volunteer were included when calculating overlap. Although vote counting also accounts for overlap, the resulting CCA was used as an additional tool for assessing the credibility of conclusions made.

Search Outcomes

Initially 8325 articles were retrieved, as shown in Fig.  2 . After removal of duplicates, 7118 remained for screening based on title and abstract and 62 articles remained to screen based on full texts, of which 21 reviews were included in the final review. A further 10 articles were retrieved from google scholar and citation searching, of which 7 were included, providing a total of 28 reviews. Excluded articles and the reasons for exclusion are available in Supplementary Material 5. Details on the inter-rater agreement of article screening can be found in Supplementary Material 6.

PRISMA flow diagram of retrieved articles (Page et al., 2020 )

Authors of three included reviews were contacted to gain sufficient information to accurately calculate overlap, for example to separate studies of volunteering from those on prosociality in general (Goethem et al., ( 2014 ); Howard & Serviss, 2022 ; Hui et al., 2020 ). For one review (Goethem et al., ( 2014 )), sufficient information to calculate true overlap was not obtained and thus it was excluded from the calculation of CCA. The excluded review was the only one that focused on adolescents; thus the exclusion is more likely to result in a conservative estimate of overlap rather than an underestimation. Despite this, CCA was 1.3%, indicating slight overlap. The overlap table used to calculate CCA is available from the corresponding author on request.

Methodological Quality of Included Primary Studies

Only 12 of the included reviews assessed primary studies for quality or risk of bias (Chen et al., 2022 ; Filges et al., 2020 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ; Hui et al., 2020 ; Hyde et al., 2014 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ; Lovell et al., 2015 ; Manjunath & Manoj, 2021 ; Marco-Gardoqui et al., 2020 ; Milbourn et al., 2018 ; Owen et al., 2022 ; Willems et al., 2020 ). The tools most commonly used to assess study quality were the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool (Lovell et al., 2015 ; Owen et al., 2022 ) and JBI checklists (Manjunath & Manoj, 2021 ; Marco-Gardoqui et al., 2020 ). Those that assessed risk of bias mainly utilised Cochrane tools ROB-2 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (Gualano et al., 2018 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ), and ROBINS-I for non-RCTs (Chen et al., 2022 ; Filges et al., 2020 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ). Only two reviews removed studies from the narrative review (Milbourn et al., 2018 ) or meta-analysis (Filges et al., 2020 ) based on quality. Reported study quality varied, but most often was reported as mainly poor quality or high risk of bias.

Methodological Quality of Included Reviews

As shown in Table 1 , the quality of included reviews varied hugely. Only seven reviews scored more than 50% (Chen et al., 2022 ; Filges et al., 2020 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ; Marco-Gardoqui et al., 2020 ; Owen et al., 2022 ; Willems et al., 2020 ). One review was found to be significantly higher quality than the rest (Filges et al., 2020 ). None of the included reviews reported the funding source of the included studies, and most did not report a pre-registration or protocol, or reference to excluded studies.

Characteristics of Included Reviews

The main characteristics of included reviews are displayed in Table 2 . Publication of reviews spanned from 1998 (Wheeler et al., 1998 ) to 2022 (Chen et al., 2022 ; Howard & Serviss, 2022 ; Owen et al., 2022 ), with search dates up to 2020 (Chen et al., 2022 ; Howard & Serviss, 2022 ; Owen et al., 2022 ). Most reviews focused on older people (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Chen et al., 2022 ; Filges et al., 2020 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ; Manjunath & Manoj, 2021 ; Milbourn et al., 2018 ; Okun et al., 2013 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ; Owen et al., 2022 ; Wheeler et al., 1998 ), with inclusion criteria ranging from aged over 50 years (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Manjunath & Manoj, 2021 ; Milbourn et al., 2018 ) to a sample with a mean age of 80 years or above (Owen et al., 2022 ). Only one review focused specifically on adolescents (Goethem et al., ( 2014 )). The number of included primary studies included in the reviews ranged from 5 (Blais et al., 2017 ) to 152 (Kragt & Holtrop, 2019 ), although not all related to the benefits of volunteering. For those that reported on location of included samples, most reviews included participants mostly from the USA (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Blais et al., 2017 ; Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ; Filges et al., 2020 ; Giraudeau & Bailly, 2019 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ; Marco-Gardoqui et al., 2020 ; Milbourn et al., 2018 ; Okun et al., 2013 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ; Owen et al., 2022 ; Wheeler et al., 1998 ), followed by North America (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Blais et al., 2017 ; Hyde et al., 2014 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ), the UK (Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ; Lovell et al., 2015 ), and Australia (Kragt & Holtrop, 2019 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ). Four reviews focused on intergenerational programmes (Blais et al., 2017 ; Galbraith et al., 2015 ; Giraudeau & Bailly, 2019 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ), two on service learning (Conway et al., 2009 ; Marco-Gardoqui et al., 2020 ), and five on specific roles including crisis line (Willems et al., 2020 ), environmental conservation (Chen et al., 2022 ; Lovell et al., 2015 ), care home work (Blais et al., 2017 ), and water sports inclusion (O’Flynn et al., 2021 ). One review limited the search to volunteering at a frequency less than seasonally (Hyde et al., 2014 ).

Several of the included meta-analyses, whilst employing a systematic search, did not perform any form of narrative synthesis alongside the results of the meta-analyses, meaning information about the characteristics of included studies was missing.

Publication Bias

Seven of the included reviews applied a meta-analysis (Conway et al., 2009 ; Filges et al., 2020 ; Goethem et al., ( 2014 ); Howard & Serviss, 2022 ; Hui et al., 2020 ; Okun et al., 2013 ; Wheeler et al., 1998 ). Of these, five reported testing for publication bias (Filges et al., 2020 ; Goethem et al., ( 2014 ); Howard & Serviss, 2022 ; Hui et al., 2020 ; Okun et al., 2013 ; Wheeler et al., 1998 ). Generally, there was no strong evidence to indicate publication bias, although one review found a likelihood of publication bias specifically for the analyses of moderators on the risk of mortality (Okun et al., 2013 ). Also, one review reported three approaches to assess publication bias which gave mixed findings (Hui et al., 2020 ), and as the remaining reviews assessed publication bias in a variety of ways such as funnel plots (Filges et al., 2020 ), publication as a moderator (Goethem et al., ( 2014 )), trim and fill procedure (Okun et al., 2013 ), and Rosenthal’s failsafe (Wheeler et al., 1998 ), results may not be reliable.

Results of vote counting by direction of effect from the 18 included reviews are shown in Table 3 . Five meta-analysis did not provide sufficient information to be included (Conway et al., 2009 ; Goethem et al., ( 2014 ); Howard & Serviss, 2022 ; Hui et al., 2020 ; Wheeler et al., 1998 ), and one only provided sufficient information to include one variable (Cattan et al., 2011 ).

General Effects on Health and Well-being

Fifteen of the included reviews reported general effects on health and well-being (Table 4 ). Reviews reporting on composite, general measures of health mainly assessed well-being, although others measured quality of life. Generally, most reviews reported that volunteering improved well-being (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ; Hui et al., 2020 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ; Kragt & Holtrop, 2019 ; O’Flynn et al., 2021 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ; Owen et al., 2022 ) and quality of life (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Höing et al., 2016 ). However, the relationship with well-being was often small and with exceptions (Conway et al., 2009 ), and one review found most studies reported no significant impact on well-being or quality of life (Lovell et al., 2015 ), possibly because the review assessed environmental volunteering specifically. The review that reported on quality of life with the highest quality reported only significant positive relationships between volunteering and well-being and quality of life (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ), although there was evidence to suggest an impact on quality of life only when volunteers felt their contribution was appreciated (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ). One review found only organisational level and not individual level participation in volunteering to significantly increase well-being (Howard & Serviss, 2022 ), another found increased well-being for older but not younger people (Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ), and another found a curvilinear relationship such that a moderate intensity of volunteering was most beneficial (Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ).

Psychological Effects on Health and Well-being

Psychological effects were the most commonly reported health and well-being outcome of volunteering, reported by 23 reviews (Table 5 ). The reviews that reported on general mental health reported mixed findings (Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ; Lovell et al., 2015 ; Milbourn et al., 2018 ), likely due to the large variation in how mental health was defined and measured. Whilst some considered mental health to be a distinct factor (Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ; Lovell et al., 2015 ), others combined factors such as life satisfaction into a composite measure of mental health (Milbourn et al., 2018 ).

The main effects of volunteering on psychological well-being clustered around those affecting mood and affect, and self-evaluations and concepts. For affect outcomes, reviews mostly reported a significant positive improvement in depression scores (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Filges et al., 2020 ; Giraudeau & Bailly, 2019 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ). Only one review reported highly mixed findings (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ), possibly attributable to the higher quality of included primary studies (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ). Reviews reporting a smaller number of contributing studies found possible moderators; two reported a reduction in depression in women but not men (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ), one found a reduction in older but not younger populations (Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ), and another found a reduction for general volunteering but increased depression for volunteering involving high empathetic arousal (Höing et al., 2016 ). In support of age as a moderator, the reviews finding a consistent positive effect on depression mainly focused on older adults (Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Filges et al., 2020 ), and the review with mixed findings included adults of all ages (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ).

There was more consistent evidence to support other mood and affect benefits, such as life satisfaction (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Chen et al., 2022 ; Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ; Manjunath & Manoj, 2021 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ; Owen et al., 2022 ), positive affect (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Chen et al., 2022 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Kragt & Holtrop, 2019 ; Manjunath & Manoj, 2021 ; Willems et al., 2020 ), and motivations (Goethem et al., ( 2014 ); Marco-Gardoqui et al., 2020 ), although a minority of evidence found non-significant effect of volunteering on life satisfaction (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Howard & Serviss, 2022 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ) and positive affect (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ). The heterogeneity of findings is most likely attributable to all volunteering types being included (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ). Additionally, single reviews found a significant reduction in anxiety (Galbraith et al., 2015 ) and an increase in psychological well-being (Cattan et al., 2011 ). Although symptoms of burnout and emotional exhaustion was cited as a significant consequence of volunteering by one review (Höing et al., 2016 ), this included emotionally demanding volunteering roles including working with medium to high risk sex offenders.

Some reviews grouped prominent psychological benefits into self-evaluations or self-concepts (Conway et al., 2009 ; Goethem et al., ( 2014 )). The most commonly reported effects on self-concepts were an increase in self-esteem (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Chen et al., 2022 ; Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Marco-Gardoqui et al., 2020 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ), purposefulness, meaningfulness, satisfaction or accomplishment (Chen et al., 2022 ; Galbraith et al., 2015 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Willems et al., 2020 ), pride and empowerment (Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ; Giraudeau & Bailly, 2019 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Marco-Gardoqui et al., 2020 ), and self-efficacy (Goethem et al., ( 2014 ); Marco-Gardoqui et al., 2020 ). However, there was some evidence of no significant effect on self-esteem (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ) or purposefulness (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ).

Physical Effects on Health and Well-being

Outcomes relating to physical effects were the least commonly investigated, reported by only 13 reviews (Table 6 ). The most consistent positive effect on physical health was an increase in physical activity (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Chen et al., 2022 ; Lovell et al., 2015 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ). Increased self-reported health (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Chen et al., 2022 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ; O’Flynn et al., 2021 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ) and functional independence (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Filges et al., 2020 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ; Höing et al., 2016 ) and reduced functional disability (Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Milbourn et al., 2018 ) and mortality (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ; Filges et al., 2020 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ; Okun et al., 2013 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ) were also commonly cited benefits, although the evidence for these effects was more inconsistent (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ). For example, there was evidence to suggest that benefits associated with self-reported health find a curvilinear relationship with intensity of volunteering, such that benefits only increase up until a moderate amount of hours spent volunteering (Anderson et al., 2014 ). The evidence for a decrease in mortality was the most substantial and, although reduced by the inclusion of covariates including SES, age, religious attendance, social support and health habits, remained significant (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ; Okun et al., 2013 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ).

Evidence for improvements in blood pressure (Chen et al., 2022 ; Lovell et al., 2015 ) and grip strength (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Chen et al., 2022 ; Lovell et al., 2015 ) was sparse and inconsistent. There was no evidence for volunteering as a significant predictor of number of medical conditions (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ; Milbourn et al., 2018 ), BMI (Chen et al., 2022 ; Lovell et al., 2015 ), frailty (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ), or living in a nursing home (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ). One review concluded that whilst volunteering helped to maintain good health, it did not improve bad health (Höing et al., 2016 ). Only one review reported decreased smoking (Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ).

Social Effects on Health and Well-being

A total of 15 reviews reported social outcomes from volunteering (Table 7 ). When social support, sense of community and social network were combined, the evidence mostly found volunteering to improve social outcomes (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ). Individually, there was evidence in support of volunteering increasing social integration (Lovell et al., 2015 ; Marco-Gardoqui et al., 2020 ), but most commonly social network (Blais et al., 2017 ; Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ; Höing et al., 2016 ), and social connectedness or a sense of community (Chen et al., 2022 ; Kragt & Holtrop, 2019 ; O’Flynn et al., 1971 ; Willems et al., 2020 ), with only a minority of evidence indicating no significant effect of volunteering in increasing one’s social network (Anderson et al., 2014 ). Volunteering was found to increase social support from both other volunteers (Höing et al., 2016 ) and friends and neighbours (Milbourn et al., 2018 ). There also appeared to be some knock-on effects, as an increased number of friendships in turn increased social integration (Farrell & Bryant, 2009 ) and increased social connectedness increased motivations (Willems et al., 2020 ). Only one review reported a negative effect, namely that whilst the number of positive social ties were increased, so were the number of negative social ties (Milbourn et al., 2018 ). Another caveat reported was that although social ties was beneficial, less than half of volunteers reported forming connection with volunteers (Hyde et al., 2014 ).

Moderators and Mediators on the Effects on Health and Well-being

Several moderators were explored around the aspects of volunteering. Evidence for the most beneficial frequency of volunteering was mixed; whilst some reviews reported a positive linear relationship between volunteering frequency and benefits (Cattan et al., 2011 ; Goethem et al., ( 2014 ); Höing et al., 2016 ), others including the best quality evidence to report on optimal frequency (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ) reported inconsistent findings (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ; Okun et al., 2013 ). Some reviews reported a curvilinear relationship between frequency and benefits (Conway et al., 2009 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Milbourn et al., 2018 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ), such that a moderate intensity of volunteering maximised the benefits, although these reviews were poor quality. The suggested optimal intensity was suggested to be around 2 h per week or 100 h per year (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Milbourn et al., 2018 ). There was disagreement as to whether formal volunteering is more (Cattan et al., 2011 ; Conway et al., 2009 ; Wheeler et al., 1998 ) or less (Cattan et al., 2011 ; Hui et al., 2020 ) beneficial than informal volunteering. This was possibly due to the outcome measure, as direct formal volunteering significantly increased life satisfaction (Wheeler et al., 1998 ), whilst mixed or informal helping significantly increased well-being and psychological functioning compared to formal volunteering (Hui et al., 2020 ). One review focusing on adolescents found no moderation of type of volunteering (Goethem et al., ( 2014 )), but another higher quality review reported only beneficial effects of environmental volunteering on physical health in comparison to civic volunteering (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ). In contrast, there was consistent evidence that structured reflection was an important positive predictor of health outcomes (Conway et al., 2009 ; Goethem et al., ( 2014 )). Religious volunteering was also a consistently reported moderator for positive health benefits (Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Manjunath & Manoj, 2021 ; Okun et al., 2013 ), with one review finding a partially mediating role of volunteering on the beneficial effects of religiosity on well-being (Kragt & Holtrop, 2019 ).

Several factors were explored in relation to the characteristics of the volunteer. Age was the most consistently reported demographic factor as a significant moderator of the effects of volunteering on well-being. Generally, older age predicted larger effects on positive health outcomes (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Goethem et al., ( 2014 ); Gualano et al., 2018 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ), and there was inconsistent evidence to suggest these increased effects were related to retirement (Höing et al., 2016 ; Hui et al., 2020 ). Whilst one review reported older adults volunteering to experience greater satisfaction than older adults in employment (Kragt & Holtrop, 2019 ), another higher quality review found older adults both working and in employment saw the most beneficial effects on health and well-being (Milbourn et al., 2018 ). On the other hand, younger age predicted higher emotional exhaustion and distress in emotionally demanding volunteering roles such as crisis line, with positive coping strategies and organisational support key to reducing this (Willems et al., 2020 ). There was minimal evidence of gender as a moderator of volunteering and well-being (Okun et al., 2013 ), with mostly no effect found (Goethem et al., 2014 ; Hui et al., 2020 ). The issue of self-selection was frequently discussed. Some reviews reported that those of higher SES were more likely to volunteer, creating a sampling bias in the results (Bonsdorff & Rantanen 2011 ; Cattan et al., 2011 ). However, the effect of volunteering on mortality was reduced but still significant when adjusting for covariates such as SES (Okun et al., 2013 ). Also, there was some evidence to suggest that those of lower SES felt more empowered by volunteering (Cattan et al., 2011 ) and reported more health benefits (Cattan et al., 2011 ; Höing et al., 2016 ). However, higher education was found to decrease stress when volunteering for crisis line (Willems et al., 2020 ).

Motivations for volunteering was found to be a significant moderator, such that those with altruistic or intrinsic motivations for volunteering saw increased benefits than those motivated for other reasons (Anderson et al., 2014 ; Höing et al., 2016 ; Okun et al., 2013 ). In support, one review found prosociality to be a far stronger predictor of health and well-being than volunteering alone (Hui et al., 2020 ). Feeling appreciated was found to be necessary to see improvements in quality of life (Jenkinson et al., 2013 ) or moderated the effects (Anderson et al., 2014 ). A moderating effect of feeling appreciated on health outcomes was also reported for depression, life satisfaction, and general well-being (Anderson et al., 2014 ). Although empathising with the recipient was important for spiritual development, it also increased the likelihood of burnout in emotionally demanding volunteering roles (Willems et al., 2020 ).

Some interactions were explored between the effects. The most frequently discussed was social factors including social connection, support, and interaction, which often moderated the relationship between volunteering and other health outcomes (Höing et al., 2016 ; Milbourn et al., 2018 ; Okun et al., 2013 ; Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ), with one review finding them to be a complete mediator of volunteering and life satisfaction (Anderson et al., 2014 ). For emotionally demanding volunteering such as crisis line, social support helped to increase well-being and buffer any negative effects (Wheeler et al., 1998 ). In keeping with this, one review hypothesised that volunteering generates social capital for both the recipient and the volunteer, with subsequent benefits on health and well-being (Onyx & Warburton, 2003 ).

Findings from Meta-Analyses

Results from reported meta-analyses (Table 8 ) varied on measures used to calculate both pooled estimates and heterogeneity, meaning comparison between reviews was difficult. There was also a lack of reporting heterogeneity at all, reflecting the general poor quality of included reviews. There were no available meta-analyses for social outcomes, aside from an aggregate measure of personal and social competence. Although many were significant, the pooled estimates for most outcomes were small, aside from mortality (Filges et al., 2020 ; Okun et al., 2013 ), and measures of physical functionality such as maintenance of functional competence (Filges et al., 2020 ). Mortality (Filges et al., 2020 ; Okun et al., 2013 ) and well-being (Conway et al., 2009 ; Howard & Serviss, 2022 ; Hui et al., 2020 ) were the only two outcomes reported by meta-analyses of more than one review. For both outcomes, pooled estimates were similar across reviews.

The current umbrella review identified 28 eligible reviews, mostly focusing on older adults, based in the USA, and including a range of forms volunteering. An overview of the strength of the evidence for each variable is shown in Fig.  3 . Reduced mortality and improved physical functioning showed the largest effect sizes with consistent supporting evidence. There was also consistent evidence to support effects on general health and well-being and quality of life, psychological well-being, pride and empowerment, motivation, self-efficacy, life satisfaction, positive affect, reduced depression, and purposefulness related to psychological constructs, improved self-reported health and physical activity relating to physical benefits, and improved social support, sense of connectedness and community, and network. The evidence suggests no effect of volunteering on medical conditions, BMI, frailty, or living in a nursing home. More research is required to establish whether there are effects of volunteering on blood pressure and grip strength. Organisational-level participation, older age, reflection, religious volunteering, altruistic motivations, and feeling appreciated all amplify the relationship between volunteering and health and well-being. Additionally, social factors have a knock-on effect for other health and well-being outcomes, with protective effects for any potential negative outcomes. There was no evidence of moderation of gender. More research is needed to explore the optimal intensity of volunteering, the role of SES, whether formal or informal volunteering is most beneficial, and whether the moderation of age is related to retirement, as current evidence is inconsistent.

Summary of strength of evidence for each variable outlined in Fig.  1 . Labelled according to vote counting results; ‘very strong’, ‘strong’, ‘moderate’, ‘weak’, and ‘very weak’

Age was the most supported moderator, namely that those of older age received greater health benefits from volunteering. One reason is that volunteering compensates for the loss of the health and well-being benefits of career success (Spurk et al., 2019 ), easing the adjustment to retirement. In support of this, work related satisfaction and perceived rewards significantly predicted life satisfaction in retired volunteers, even when controlling for demographic factors and self-efficacy (Wu et al., 2005 ). However, the current umbrella review found inconsistent evidence to support retirement as the explanation. Instead, the findings indicate that although many of the benefits associated with volunteering do relate to a sense of purpose, the benefits of volunteering are also distinct from usual work activity, through feelings of altruism and self-actualisation. This perhaps explains the complex relationship with age. Age has been established as a positive predictor of altruistic motivations (Sparrow et al., 2021 ), which was found to predict better health outcomes of volunteering. More research is needed to explore the role of retirement and alternate explanations in the relationship between age and the benefits of volunteering, including the interaction of age with other moderators.

On the contrary, there was no evidence to support gender as a moderator for the relationship between volunteering and health and well-being. Although women are more likely to volunteer than men (NCVO, 2021b ), the results of this review indicated that once volunteering, there is no effect of gender on the subsequent health benefits. This provides a case for future volunteering initiatives to be targeted towards men, and for more research to explore the barriers to volunteering for men specifically, such as through qualitative methodology (Males, 2015 ).

The findings of this review suggest a complex relationship between SES and volunteering and its benefits. There is vast research to support the finding that those of higher SES are twice as likely to volunteer than those of the lowest SES (NCVO, 2021b ). However, the current review also indicated that those of lower SES may benefit more from volunteering. If so, the use of volunteering must be maximised to help reduce health inequalities. It is key to note that those of lower SES are more likely to engage in informal volunteering, which is often overlooked by the volunteering literature (Dean, 2022 ). Thus, it is important that future research further explore the influence of the formality of volunteering on the health benefits, as the current umbrella review found inconsistent results. Dependent on this, particularly during retirement, the findings of this review indicate that public health campaigns to enable volunteering should be particularly focused on those of lower SES.

More research is needed to determine the relationship between frequency of volunteering and health and well-being, as the current review found it was not related to the age of volunteers or type of volunteering. The rationale behind a curvilinear relationship is that time spent volunteering positively predicts burnout (Moreno-Jiménez & Villodres, 2010 ). However, the only evidence linking volunteering to burnout in the current umbrella review related to volunteering that was emotionally demanding (Höing et al., 2016 ; Willems et al., 2020 ) rather than frequency, as suggested by Linning and Jackson (Linning & Volunteering, 2018 ). Indeed, emotional exhaustion is one of three subscales within the concept of burnout, which is explained as a result of prolonged and intense emotional involvement (Maslach & Jackson, 1981 ). The current umbrella review found that sufficient support from the organisation helped mitigate the effects of emotionally demanding volunteer roles on burnout and increased well-being (Höing et al., 2016 ; Kragt & Holtrop, 2019 ; Willems et al., 2020 ). Systematic reviews of healthcare providers have found a negative prediction of positive social support to burnout, leading the authors to recommend that interventions to reduce burnout should focus on social support (Guilaran et al., 2018 ; Velando-Soriano et al., 2020 ). Thus, it is at upmost importance that organisations recruiting for emotionally demanding volunteer roles must ensure a sufficient and positive support network to avoid negative health and well-being outcomes such as burnout. For example, sufficient support from supervisors and a stable and supportive organisational environment are essential.

A particularly useful finding of this review is that positive social outcomes of volunteering in turn encourage other positive health and well-being outcomes. Indeed, social capital has been established to reduce mortality and improve physical and mental health (Ehsan et al., 2019 ). Interestingly, the current review also found that volunteering predicted self-reported health, functioning, mortality, and mental health outcomes much better than for other objective indicators of health such as living with medical conditions, BMI, and frailty. This highlights the need for a holistic view of health to assess mortality risk rather than only focusing on physical indicators. For example, lack of flourishing mental health was shown to significantly predict mortality in a 10-year longitudinal analysis, even when controlling for a number of factors including physical disease (Keyes & Simoes, 2012 ). Another longitudinal study found that although the prediction of life satisfaction on mortality was partially shared with physical health and social orientation, it also exerted an independent effect on mortality (Hülür et al., 2017 ). Thus, it is essential to also focus on the mental and social outcomes of volunteering to capture all the potential benefits.

There was consistent evidence to suggest religious volunteering to be a moderator of the effects of volunteering on health and well-being. Whilst one suggested explanation for the moderating effect on well-being is that religiosity is an indication of benevolent and altruistic motives (Krause et al., 2017 ), the social science literature suggests that volunteering offers a chance to enact a group identity (Caricati et al., 2020 ; Gray & Stevenson, 2020 ), in this case a religious group (Wakefield et al., 2022 ). Indeed, for volunteers high in religiosity, identification with the religious organisation they were volunteering for predicted their sense of being enable to enact their religious group three months later, which in turn predicted mental health improvements (Wakefield et al., 2022 ). Subsequently, the relationship between religion, volunteering and well-being is not only explained through altruistic motives, but also because volunteering provides those high in religiosity a space to enact their religious norms, strengthening their group identity and consequently their well-being (Wakefield et al., 2022 ). However, more research is needed to determine whether this also applies when volunteering for secular organisations.

Strengths and Limitations

The current umbrella review provides a comprehensive overview of the literature on the benefits of all types of volunteering (Gianfredi et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, the very low overlap of primary studies provides credibility to the conclusions drawn. However, there are a number of limitations to consider. The relatively high proportion of articles retrieved from other sources, despite scoping searches being conducted prior to the search, indicates that the databases searched were not comprehensive. Forward and backward citation searching aimed to address this limitation. Secondly, the included reviews were mainly low quality, and for those reviews that assessed quality, the quality of primary studies was mixed. However, as higher quality reviews tended to use a more stringent measure of risk of bias (Chen et al., 2022 ; Filges et al., 2020 ; Gualano et al., 2018 ; Jenkinson et al., 2013 ), it is important that the quality of the review was also considered when weighting findings. Whilst the very low percentage of overlap between primary was a strength, it also may indicate that the included reviews were not thorough, reflected in the general poor quality ratings. Also, the vote counting method applied could not account for the curvilinear relationships identified, highlighting the importance of describing these within the text. More significantly, although efforts were made to conduct vote counting via direction of effect rather than significance, this was not always possible to attain due to insufficient reporting of reviews.

Another limitation is that although three reviews were published in 2022, none of the searches went beyond 2020, meaning no research conducted during or after the COVID-19 pandemic was included. There is evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic created lasting changes to volunteering, mainly that it encouraged digital volunteering which has sustained even after restrictions were lifted (Kanemura et al., 2022 ). This digitalisation has attracted a new group of volunteers who may experience volunteering differently (Kanemura et al., 2022 ). More importantly, digitalisation has impacted on the opportunity for social connection (Kanemura et al., 2022 ), which, as established by this review, has a knock-on effect on the mental and physical benefits of volunteering. A systematic review of research conducted after 2020 would be useful to compare to the findings of the current umbrella review to explore these differences further.

This review has established a multitude of benefits of volunteering on mental, physical, and social health and well-being, particularly reduced mortality, and increased functioning, quality of life, pride, empowerment, motivation, social support, and sense of community. To ensure the generalisability of these findings, more research is needed outside of the USA, and specifically focusing on adolescents. More quantitative research to aid meta-analyses on the social benefits of volunteering would be beneficial to quantify the effects and aid comparison with the mental and physical benefits. However, any future systematic review and meta-analysis on the topic should ensure to follow quality criteria from the AMSTAR-2 (Shea et al., 2021 ), specifically ensuring to pre-register methods and hypotheses, cite excluded studies, report their funding source, and account for their risk of bias. Concerning interacting factors, more research is needed to explore the likely complex relationship of volunteering with both SES and religiosity, and the optimum ‘dose’ of volunteering to gain the established benefits. Volunteering should be considered as an intervention in itself, particularly within the context of social prescribing, where referral to engage in volunteering should be encouraged. Where volunteering roles are emotionally demanding, an appropriate support system should be ensured by the organisation to prevent negative health outcomes such as burnout.

Anderson, N. D., Damianakis, T., Kröger, E., Wagner, L. M., Dawson, D. R., Binns, M. A., Bernstein, S., Caspi, E., & Cook, S. L. (2014). The benefits associated with volunteering among seniors: A critical review and recommendations for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 140 (6), 1505.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Blais, S., McCleary, L., Garcia, L., & Robitaille, A. (2017). Examining the benefits of intergenerational volunteering in long-term care: A review of the literature. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 15 (3), 258–272.

Article   Google Scholar  

Caricati, L., Panari, C., & Melleri, M. (2020). Group identification and self-efficacy associated with quality of life in emergency medical services volunteers: A cross-sectional investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50 (8), 476–488.

Casiday, R., Kinsman, E., Fisher, C., & Bambra, C. (2008). Volunteering and health what impact does it really have. Volunteering England, 9 (3), 1–13.

Google Scholar  

Cattan, M., Hogg, E., & Hardill, I. (2011). Improving quality of life in ageing populations: What can volunteering do? Maturitas, 70 (4), 328–332.

Chen, H.-L., Chen, P., Zhang, Y., Xing, Y., Guan, Y.-Y., Cheng, D.-X., & Li, X.-W. (2020). Retention of volunteers and factors influencing program performance of the senior care volunteers training program in Jiangsu, China. PLoS ONE, 15 (8), e0237390.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chen, P.-W., Chen, L.-K., Huang, H.-K., & Loh, C.-H. (2022). Productive aging by environmental volunteerism: A systematic review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 98 , 104563.

Conway, J. M., Amel, E. L., & Gerwien, D. P. (2009). Teaching and learning in the social context: A meta-analysis of service learning’s effects on academic, personal, social, and citizenship outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 36 (4), 233–245.

Dean, J. (2022). Informal volunteering, inequality, and illegitimacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51 (3), 527–544.

Dunn, J., Ng, S. K., Hyde, M. K., Legg, M., Zajdlewicz, L., Stein, K., Savage, A., Scuffham, P., & Chambers, S. K. (2021). Characteristics that predict volunteer retention and fundraising in community-based challenge events. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 27 , e1732.

Ehsan, A., Klaas, H. S., Bastianen, A., & Spini, D. (2019). Social capital and health: A systematic review of systematic reviews. SSM-Population Health, 8 , 100425.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Farrell, C., & Bryant, W. (2009). Voluntary work for adults with mental health problems: A route to inclusion? A review of the literature. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72 (4), 163–173.

Filges, T., Siren, A., Fridberg, T., & Nielsen, B. C. (2020). Voluntary work for the physical and mental health of older volunteers: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16 (4), e1124.

Galbraith, B., Larkin, H., Moorhouse, A., & Oomen, T. (2015). Intergenerational programs for persons with dementia: A scoping review. Journal of Gerontological Social Work., 58 (4), 357–378.

Gianfredi, V., Nucci, D., Amerio, A., Signorelli, C., Odone, A., & Dinu, M. (2022). What can we expect from an umbrella review? Advances in Nutrition, 13 (2), 684–685.

Giraudeau, C., & Bailly, N. (2019). Intergenerational programs: What can school-age children and older people expect from them? A systematic review. European Journal of Ageing, 16 (3), 363–376.

Goethem, A., Hoof, A., Orobio de Castro, B., Van Aken, M., & Hart, D. (2014). The Role of reflection in the effects of community service on adolescent development: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 85 (6), 2114–30.

Gray, D., & Stevenson, C. (2020). How can ‘we’help? Exploring the role of shared social identity in the experiences and benefits of volunteering. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 30 (4), 341–353.

Grönlund, H., & Falk, H. (2019). Does it make a difference? The effects of volunteering from the viewpoint of recipients–A literature review. Diaconia, 10 (1), 7–26.

Gualano, M. R., Voglino, G., Bert, F., Thomas, R., Camussi, E., & Siliquini, R. (2018). The impact of intergenerational programs on children and older adults: A review. International Psychogeriatrics, 30 (4), 451–468.

Guilaran, J., de Terte, I., Kaniasty, K., & Stephens, C. (2018). Psychological outcomes in disaster responders: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of social support. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9 (3), 344–358.

Harp, E. R., Scherer, L. L., & Allen, J. A. (2017). Volunteer engagement and retention: Their relationship to community service self-efficacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46 (2), 442–458.

Höing, M., Bogaerts, S., & Vogelvang, B. (2016). Helping sex offenders to desist offending: The gains and drains for CoSA volunteers - A review of the literature. Sexual Abuse, 28 (5), 364.

Howard, M. C., & Serviss, E. (2022). The antecedents and outcomes of corporate volunteering: An employee- and organizational-level meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology., 37 (2), 93–110.

Hui, B. P. H., Ng, J. C. K., Berzaghi, E., Cunningham-Amos, L. A., & Kogan, A. (2020). Rewards of kindness? A meta-analysis of the link between prosociality and well-being. Psychological Bulletin., 146 (12), 1084.

Hülür, G., Heckhausen, J., Hoppmann, C. A., Infurna, F. J., Wagner, G. G., Ram, N., & Gerstorf, G. (2017). Levels of and changes in life satisfaction predict mortality hazards: Disentangling the role of physical health, perceived control, and social orientation. Psychology and Aging, 32 (6), 507.

Husk, K., Lovell, R., Cooper, C., Stahl-Timmins, W., & Garside, R. (2016). Participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities for health and well-being in adults: A review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 5 , CD010351.

Hyde, M. K., Dunn, J., Scuffham, P. A., & Chambers, S. K. (2014). A systematic review of episodic volunteering in public health and other contexts. BMC Public Health, 14 , 992.

Jenkinson, C. E., Dickens, A. P., Jones, K., Thompson-Coon, J., Taylor, R. S., Rogers, M., Bambra, C. L., Lang, I., & Richards, S. H. (2013). Is volunteering a public health intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the health and survival of volunteers. BMC Public Health, 13 , 773.

Kanemura, R., Chan, O., Farrow, A. (2022). Time well spent: Impact of Covid-19 on the volunteer experience. NCVO

Keyes, C. L., & Simoes, E. J. (2012). To flourish or not: Positive mental health and all-cause mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 102 (11), 2164–2172.

Kragt, D., & Holtrop, D. (2019). Volunteering research in Australia: A narrative review. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71 (4), 342–360.

Krause, N., Ironson, G., & Hill, P. C. (2017). Volunteer work, religious commitment, and resting pulse rates. Journal of Religion and Health, 56 (2), 591–603.

Linning M, Jackson G. (2018). Volunteering, health and wellbeing

Lovell, R., Husk, K., Cooper, C., Stahl-Timmins, W., & Garside, R. (2015). Understanding how environmental enhancement and conservation activities may benefit health and wellbeing: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 15 (1), 1–18.

Macduff, N. (2005). Societal changes and the rise of the episodic volunteer. Emerging Areas of Volunteering, 1 (2), 49–61.

Manjunath, J., & Manoj, N. (2021). Interventions against social isolation of older adults: A Systematic review of existing Literature and Interventions. Geriatrics, 6 (3), 82.

Marco-Gardoqui, M., Eizaguirre, A., & García-Feijoo, M. (2020). The impact of service-learning methodology on business schools’ students worldwide: A systematic literature review. PLoS One, 15 (12), e0244389.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2 (2), 99–113.

Mateiu-Vescan, R., Ionescu, T., & Opre, A. (2021). Reconsidering volunteering: Individual change as a result of doing good for others. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32 (6), 1213–27.

McKenzie, J. E., & Brennan, S. E. (2019). Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.), JPT Higgins (pp. 321–347). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons.

Milbourn, B., Jaya, S., & Buchanan, A. (2018). The relationship between time spent in volunteering activities and quality of life in adults over the age of 50 years: A systematic review. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 81 (11), 613–623.

Moreno-Jiménez, M. P., & Villodres, M. C. H. (2010). Prediction of burnout in volunteers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40 (7), 1798–1818.

Muhl, C., Mulligan, K., Bayoumi, I., Ashcroft, R., & Godfrey, C. (2022). Establishing internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing through expert consensus: A delphi study. medrxiv . https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.14.22282098

NCVO. (2021). What is the economic contribution of the voluntary sector? NCVO.

NCVO. (2021). What are the demographics of volunteers? NCVO.

Nichol, B., Wilson, R., Rodrigues, A., Haighton, C. (2022) The effect of volunteering on the health and wellbeing of volunteers: protocol for an umbrella review. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. CRD42022349703

O’Flynn, A., Barrett, E., & Murphy, J. (2021). A brief literature review of the psychological benefits of volunteerism in watersports inclusion (1971-). Irish Journal of Medical Science, 190 (2), 731–4.

Okun, M. A., Yeung, E. W., & Brown, S. (2013). Volunteering by older adults and risk of mortality: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 28 (2), 564–577.

Onyx, J., & Warburton, J. (2003). Volunteering and health among older people: A review. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 22 (2), 65–69.

Owen, R., Berry, K., & Brown, L. J. E. (2022). Enhancing older adults’ well-being and quality of life through purposeful activity: A systematic review of intervention studies. The Gerontologist, 62 (6), e317.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., & Chou, R. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj, 2021 , 372.

Pieper, D., Antoine, S.-L., Mathes, T., Neugebauer, E. A., & Eikermann, M. (2014). Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology., 67 (4), 368–375.

Piliavin JA. (2010) Volunteering across the life span . The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping . p 157–72.

Pollock, M., Fernandes, RM., Becker, LA., Pieper, D., Hartling, L. (2020). Chapter V: overviews of reviews. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version p 6

Public Health England P (2019) Social Prescribing: applying all our health . https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-prescribing-applying-all-our-health/social-prescribing-applying-all-our-health

Saeri, A. K., Slattery, P., Lee, J., Houlden, T., Farr, N., Gelber, R. L., Stone, J., Huuskes, L., Timmons, S., Windle, K., & Spajic, L. (2022). What works to increase charitable donations? A meta-review with meta-meta-analysis. VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-022-00499-y

Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, S. W. (2016). Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. Voluntas, 27 (4), 1515.

Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., & Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. bmj . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008

Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11 (1), 1–6.

Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2008). Volunteerism: Social issues perspectives and social policy implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2 (1), 1–36.

South, J., Branney, P., & Kinsella, K. (2011). Citizens bridging the gap? Interpretations of volunteering roles in two public health projects. Voluntary Sector Review., 2 (3), 297–315.

Sparrow, E. P., Swirsky, L. T., Kudus, F., & Spaniol, J. (2021). Aging and altruism: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 36 (1), 49.

Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., & Dries, N. (2019). Antecedents and outcomes of objective versus subjective career success: Competing perspectives and future directions. Journal of Management., 45 (1), 35–69.

Stuart, J., Kamerāde, D., Connolly, S., Ellis, A., Nichols, G., & Grotz, J. (2020). The impacts of volunteering on the subjective wellbeing of volunteers: A rapid evidence assessment . What Works Centre for Wellbeing.

Studer, S., & Von Schnurbein, G. (2013). Organizational factors affecting volunteers: A literature review on volunteer coordination. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24 (2), 403–440.

Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42 , 115–31.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Thomson, L., Camic, P., & Chatterjee, H. (2015). Social prescribing: a review of community referral schemes . London University College.

Thormar, S. B., Gersons, B. P. R., Juen, B., Marschang, A., Djakababa, M. N., & Olff, M. (2010). The mental health impact of volunteering in a disaster setting: A review. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198 (8), 529–538.

Tierney, S., Mahtani, K. R., Wong, G., Todd, J., Roberts, N., Akinyemi, O., Howes, S., & Turk, A. (2022). The role of volunteering in supporting well-being–What might this mean for social prescribing? A best-fit framework synthesis of qualitative research. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30 (2), e325–e346.

Velando-Soriano, A., Ortega-Campos, E., Gómez-Urquiza, J. L., Ramírez-Baena, L., De La Fuente, E. I., & Cañadas-De La Fuente, G. A. (2020). Impact of social support in preventing burnout syndrome in nurses: A systematic review. Japan Journal of Nursing Science, 17 (1), 12269.

von Bonsdorff, M. B., & Rantanen, T. (2011). Benefits of formal voluntary work among older people: A review. Aging clinical and experimental research, 23 (3), 162–9.

Wakefield, J. R. H., Bowe, M., & Kellezi, B. (2022). Thy will be done: Exploring the longitudinal rewards of religious group membership enactment during volunteering. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61 (1), 253–275.

Wheeler, J. A., Gorey, K. M., & Greenblatt, B. (1998). The beneficial effects of volunteering for older volunteers and the people they serve: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 47 (1), 69–79.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Willems, R., Drossaert, C., Vuijk, P., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2020). Impact of crisis line volunteering on mental wellbeing and the associated factors: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (5), 1641.

Williams, K. (2015). Males as mentors: a qualitative assessment of volunteer recruitment . NY: University of Pittsburgh.

Woldie, M., Feyissa, G. T., Admasu, B., Hassen, K., Mitchell, K., Mayhew, S., McKee, M., & Balabanova, D. (2018). Community health volunteers could help improve access to and use of essential health services by communities in LMICs: An umbrella review. Health Policy and Planning, 33 (10), 1128–1143.

Wu, A., Tang, C. S., & Yan, E. C. (2005). Post-retirement voluntary work and psychological functioning among older Chinese in Hong Kong. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 20 (1), 27–45.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social Work, Education, and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Beth Nichol & Catherine Haighton

Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Department of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Angela Rodrigues

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beth Nichol .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

As the current study dealt with only secondary data, ethical approval was not required.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 226 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nichol, B., Wilson, R., Rodrigues, A. et al. Exploring the Effects of Volunteering on the Social, Mental, and Physical Health and Well-being of Volunteers: An Umbrella Review. Voluntas 35 , 97–128 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-023-00573-z

Download citation

Accepted : 17 April 2023

Published : 04 May 2023

Issue Date : February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-023-00573-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Umbrella review
• Volunteering
• Social prescribing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Quick Links

• UW School of Medicine

Reproductive & Sexual Health

Reproductive & sexual health.

Participate in Research is designed to connect potential volunteers with open research studies. We are looking for volunteers just like you to help answer important questions about reproductive and sexual health. This page lists reproductive and sexual health studies that may apply to you or someone you know. If you find a study that you’d like to participate in, you can contact the study team with questions or to volunteer. Join us to improve the health of others.

More Information

Uw medicine reproductive care.

University Reproductive Care specializes in offering comprehensive care to men and women trying to conceive a child. Our providers work with couples and individuals to simplify and demystify the process of infertility treatments.

Active Studies

Listening to bisexual women of color’s maternal healthcare experiences.

Our team of queer and BIPOC researchers is leading this study to explore and understand bisexual women of color’s experiences, preferences, and priorities across maternal healthcare. By sharing your story, you can help bisexual women of color thrive during their maternal healthcare experiences. Participation in…

Usability Study

This study will evaluate a new medical device that has been developed to treat Overactive Bladder, or OAB, a condition characterized by the need to urinate urgently and/or frequently often accompanied by the leakage of urine. The device consists of a flexible silicone rubber ring…

Endometriosis Dietary Study

Active participation in the study is over a 12-week period. All participants will be asked to complete questionnaires online at 4 times during the study period (questionnaires focus on pain and quality of life questions)and are randomized to either a dietary intervention or a control…

HIV reservoir in blood and inflammation in the intestine.

The purpose of this study is to understand whether HIV medications can produce inflammation in the intestine (“your gut”) and affect the size of the HIV reservoir in people living with HIV. There are two study visits: General health assessment and medical history Endoscopy and…

Effects of Testosterone Among Transmasculine Individuals

In the description of this study, the anatomic word ‘vagina’ will be used; however, study participants who do not use this word for their anatomy can let us know what term they would like us to use during the study.The purpose of this study is…

This study is designed to help us understand how the use of a mobile app (LetSync) developed for couples can improve HIV healthcare outcomes. We are asking BIPOC couples assigned male at birth and living with HIV to use the app over the 8 month…

Testosterone in Men with Cancer (TEMEC)

The Testosterone in Men with Cancer study is a research study in men, ages 55 and older, who have solid or hematologic (blood) cancer and have received, or are receiving, chemotherapy and/or radiation for their cancer in the past 5 years. The purpose of the…

Designing to Record & Share Menopause Experiences Across Generations

Family history is seen to have important implications in menopause but due to a number of reasons such as family dynamics, death, and the taboo associated with the topic, women are often missing out on this essential information. Past research found people trying to make…

The purpose of this study is to understand if taking an antibiotic called doxycycline by mouth as soon as possible after sexual contact without a condom can reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis. The study will also look…

Preeclampsia and later-life heart disease

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women. Having a prior complicated pregnancy may play a role in the development of cardiovascular disease. One specific complication of interest is preeclampsia, a pregnancy-specific disease presenting with high blood pressure and problems with other major…

• youtube-play

This website benefits from the continuous support of Online Volunteers. UNV is administered by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

UNV Scam Alert

UNV Privacy Policy

UNV Website Terms of Use

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Contact Contact

Join Donate

The Health Benefits of Volunteering: A Review of Recent Research

Over the past two decades, a growing body of research indicates that volunteering provides not just social benefits, but individual health benefits as well. This research has established a strong relationship between volunteering and health: those who volunteer have lower mortali-ty rates, greater functional ability, and lower rates of depression later in life than those who do not volunteer.

Full report

Further information, you are leaving americorps.gov.

The website you’re going to is not part of the AmeriCorps domain and may not be under AmeriCorps’ control. Its privacy and security practices and policies may differ from AmeriCorps’. AmeriCorps is not responsible for the link, nor does it endorse the content of the third-party website.

Click on the continue button to proceed to the external website; otherwise click cancel to stay on AmeriCorps.gov.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Introduction

This study is currently closed for new participants..

If you are interested in being a volunteer for other studies, please click here .

People in good health are invited to participate as a research study volunteer. Study participants play a vital role in biomedical research by helping scientists advance knowledge and better understand, treat, and ultimately, improve health.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is conducting this study to create a list of volunteers who are interested in participating in additional NIMH studies.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Public Health

Volunteering and health benefits in general adults: cumulative effects and forms

Jerf w. k. yeung.

Department of Applied Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Zhuoni Zhang

Tae yeun kim, associated data.

The data supporting this study are available in the ICPSR repository. Data identifier: ICPSR 04297, http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/04297 .

Although the health benefits of volunteering have been well documented, no research has examined its cumulative effects according to other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering on multiple health outcomes in the general adult public. This study examined other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering in cumulative contribution to health outcomes (mental and physical health, life satisfaction, social well-being and depression).

Data were drawn from the Survey of Texas Adults 2004, which contains a statewide population-based sample of adults ( n  = 1504). Multivariate linear regression and Wald test of parameters equivalence constraint were used to test the relationships.

Both forms of volunteering were significantly related to better health outcomes (odds ratios = 3.66% to 11.11%), except the effect of self-oriented volunteering on depression. Other-oriented volunteering was found to have better health benefits than did self-volunteering.

Volunteering should be promoted by public health, education and policy practitioners as a kind of healthy lifestyle, especially for the social subgroups of elders, ethnic minorities, those with little education, single people, and unemployed people, who generally have poorer health and less participation in volunteering.

The beneficial effects of volunteering on health outcomes have been well documented. Research has found that participation in voluntary services is significantly predictive of better mental and physical health [ 1 , 2 ], life satisfaction [ 3 ], self-esteem [ 3 , 4 ], happiness [ 5 , 6 ], lower depressive symptoms [ 4 , 7 ], psychological distress [ 3 , 8 ], and mortality and functional inability [ 8 , 9 ]. As proved recently, the health benefits of volunteering are not due to self-selection bias. Recent longitudinal research did not support reverse causation, in which volunteering was significantly related to better health prospectively, and the reverse was not true [ 2 ].

What remains uncharted for the relationship between volunteering and health outcomes is pertinent to whether volunteering may have cumulative effects on health and what form of volunteering is preferable for promoting health benefits for volunteers [ 1 , 7 , 9 ]. Regarding the volunteering and health connection, the role accumulation perspective supports the position that a volunteer who concomitantly participates in different types of voluntary services can benefit his or her health most [ 2 , 4 , 5 , 8 ]. The rationale is that role-related social privileges, resources, supportive network, coping skills, life meaning and gratitude accumulated through assuming multiple prosocial roles can be directly conducive to various health outcomes. In contrast, the scarcity thesis argues that simultaneous occupation of multiple roles would result in conflict and strain, which would compromise health [ 2 , 4 ]. Therefore, it is worth investigating whether participation in multiple voluntary services contemporaneously, that is, the cumulative effects, would contribute to better health outcomes in the general public according to the relationship between volunteering and health.

This study is drawn from the meaning-fulfilling perspective that volunteering in general, by its prosocial and meaning-making nature, would positively contribute to health benefits [ 2 , 10 , 11 ]. However, different forms of volunteering are believed to have differential effects on health benefits [ 10 – 12 ]. Recent philanthropic research reports that the form of other-oriented volunteering has better health effects than does self-oriented volunteering in elderly people or in convenience samples [ 10 , 11 ]. This is congruous with the meaning-fulfilling perspective with regard to the subtly different meaning-making processes that the two forms of volunteering engender. Other-oriented volunteering refers to helping others in need mainly by altruistic responsibilities and humanitarian concerns [ 2 , 11 ]. These concerns can more effectively help accrue genuine supportive relationships and social integration, self-worth, a sense of mattering, and life meaning and therefore better contribute to health benefits [ 2 , 11 ]. Self-oriented volunteering means the stress of volunteers on the reciprocity of volunteering, or volunteering affordance expressed by some scholars, that is, to seek benefits and enhance the volunteers themselves in return. Examples include strengthened social network and ties, understanding of self, acquisition of new skills, and career development [ 10 – 12 ]. In fact, such self-enhancing volunteerism is less effective in accruing meaningful and health-promoting benefits, e.g. supportive relationships and a sense of mattering, in the process of volunteering compared to other-oriented volunteering [ 2 , 3 , 11 ]. Thus, it is worth investigating whether the forms of other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering have different cumulative effects on health outcomes.

The current study aimed to investigate the cumulative effects of other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering, formed by participation in multiple pertinent voluntary services contemporaneously, on the health outcomes of perceived mental and physical health, life satisfaction, depression, and social well-being in a population-based sample of general adults. In addition, this study compared whether other-oriented volunteering has stronger health effects than does self-oriented volunteering.

Data and sample

The data used in this study were based on the Survey of Texas Adults 2004, which contains a statewide representative sample of 1504 community-dwelling adults aged 18 and over in Texas [ 13 ]. The sampling procedure was based on a modified random digit dialing design. A household-level cooperation rate of 37% and a respondent-level cooperation rate of 89% were obtained in the data-collection process. The survey was mainly conducted in English. Translation of survey instruments into Spanish and administration by a Spanish-speaking interviewer were applied when needed. Each computer-assisted telephone interview lasted about 30–35 min. Due to the overrepresentation of women, older adults, non-Hispanic Whites, and highly educated respondents in the original sample, the data were weighted to match the characteristics of the sample to the 2000 Texas population census estimates. The Survey of Texas Adults 2004 provided fruitful information on people’s participation in various types of voluntary services and health outcomes. Detailed socio-demographic data available in the survey can help adjust for confounding from the relevant background characteristics. The socio-demographic variables included in this study are gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, citizenship, marital status, number of children at home, employment status and family income. These background characteristics have been found influential on both volunteering and health outcomes in past research [ 1 – 3 , 5 , 9 , 14 ].

All measures employed for analysis in this study were self-reported by the adult participants. The information about these measures was mainly drawn from the sections of volunteering, physical health, mental health and demographic characteristics in the survey.

Health outcomes

Mental health.

In the Survey of Texas Adults 2004, a question was used to measure the mental health of the adult participants: “Overall, how would you rate your mental health at the present time? Would you say it is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” The ratings are based on a 5-point scale (1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 3 = good, 4 = fair, and 5 = poor). For easy interpretation, the scale was reversely coded, meaning that higher scores represent better mental health.

Physical health

The adult participants in the survey were asked to respond to the question: “How would you rate your physical health at the present time? Would you say it is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” The answers were used as a general indicator of physical health. The responses are also based on 5-point scale from 1 = excellent to 5 = poor. Again for better interpretation, the scale was reversely coded to indicate that higher scores represent better physical health.

Life satisfaction

The survey question used to rate participants’ levels of life satisfaction was: “How satisfied you are with your life overall?” The question was rated on a 4-point scale (1 = very satisfied, 2 = somewhat satisfied, 3 = not too satisfied, and 4 = not at all satisfied). The scale was reversely recoded, meaning that higher scores indicate better life satisfaction.

Five question items in the survey were used to measure participants’ depression in the past 30 days: “feeling sad”, “feeling hopeless”, “feeling everything was an effort”, “feeling worthless” and “had trouble breathing”. These items have been used to indicate depressive symptoms in prior research [ 7 , 15 ]. They were rated on a 5-point scale from never (1) to several times a day (5), and a composite score was gathered by summing up the items. Cronbach’s α was .739 in this study.

Social well-being

Two question items in the survey were used to measure social well-being: “I am lacking companionship” and “I feel isolated from others”. These items are indicative of social integration and social acceptance and satisfaction about relationships with others [ 16 , 17 ], which has been found influential on health [ 16 ]. The items were rated from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). The items were summed up to form a composite score. Higher scores imply better social well-being. Cronbach’s α was .717.

Volunteering

Other-oriented volunteering.

Recent philanthropic research indicates that volunteers simultaneously engage in various types of voluntary services; therefore, simply dichotomizing participants into volunteers and non-volunteers is inadequate [ 7 , 14 ]. In this study, volunteering is classified into the two broad forms of other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering. Prior research indicates that volunteers of other-oriented motivation were more likely to volunteer in health, social, religious and other philanthropic services [ 11 ]. Hence, other-oriented volunteering was measured by summing up participation in the past 12 months in the voluntary services of health, education, religious groups, human services, public/social benefits, and youth development. In fact, these voluntary services explicitly bear other-regarding and altruistic features that, by their nature, show concern and care for the needs of others [ 2 , 11 ]. The scores of this volunteering form range from 0 to 6, higher scores indicative of more participation in other-oriented volunteering.

Self-oriented volunteering

In this study, participation in the voluntary services of recreation, arts or culture, environment or animal welfare, work-related service, political campaign or movement, and other service simultaneously in the past 12 months was summed up to form self-oriented volunteering, the types of voluntary services bearing features of self-actualization and development or self-serving [ 10 – 12 ]. Concordantly, prior research has reported that volunteers of self-oriented motivation were fond of volunteering in culture/recreation, environment, law/politics, and business or professional services [ 11 ]. Participation in these voluntary services shows that those who volunteer may actually emphasize reciprocation of volunteering to benefit and enhance themselves, e.g. increased social network and ties, understanding of self, evasion of personal problems, acquisition of new skills, and career development [ 2 , 11 , 12 ]. The scores of this form of volunteering also range from 0 to 6, higher scores indicative of more participation in self-oriented volunteering.

Control variables

The socio-demographic variables adjusted in this study include gender (1 = female, 0 = male), age in years, race/ethnicity, education (1 = none, 2 = high school, 3 = GED, 4 = associates degree, 5 = bachelor’s degree, 6 = graduate degree, 7 = doctorate), citizenship (1 = US citizen, 0 = other), marital status (1 = currently married, 0 = other), number of children at home, annual family income (1 = $0 to $14,999, 2 = $15,000 to $34,999, 3 = $35,000 to $49,999, 4 = 50,000 to $64,999, 5 = $65,000 to $84,999, and 6 = $85,000 or more), and employment status (1 = employed, 0 = other). Three dummy variables were constructed for race/ethnicity, in which African American (Black), Hispanic/Mexican American, and other races or ethnicities were the contrast groups, and non-Hispanic White was the reference category. Number of children was coded 0 to 4 or more children. As family income has the missing values of 34.9%, Expectation Maximization Imputation (EM) was used to replace the missing values rather than mean substitution, which was applied in previous relevant research [ 18 ]. Mean substitution will bias the mean distribution and restrict variance. EM, however, may set off these problems by using a two-step iterative process that involves regression analysis and maximum likelihood procedures to allow all available pertinent variables as predictors for imputing missing data [ 19 ]. A dummy variable was created to indicate whether the participant had missing information on income (1 = missing, 0 = other), to preclude confounding.

Statistical analyses

Due to the multi-correlated nature of the health outcomes, the current study employed multivariate linear regression to analyze the results. 1 This modeling approach has the advantage of reducing multi-collinearity and problems of Type I errors when there are significant correlations among the outcome variables [ 22 ]. Then, all five health outcomes are concurrently regressed on the predictors of volunteering and pertinent socio-demographic covariates. For easy interpretation of the regression results, the predictors of volunteering and socio-demographic covariates were standardized into z-scores, so it is possible to calculate percentages increased in the health outcomes by one unit increase in volunteering (e.g. additional participation in the voluntary services) through likelihood ratio= e β  − 1. In addition, the Wald test of parameters equivalence constraint was used to ascertain whether other-oriented volunteering had stronger health effects than did self-oriented volunteering. The statistical analyses were performed by Mplus 7.11.

Table ​ Table1 1 presents the correlations of the five health outcomes and the predictors of other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering. Mental and physical health, life satisfaction and social well-being were significantly and positively correlated with each other, rs = .247 to .369, ps < .001, and they were significantly and negatively correlated with depression, rs = −.334 to −.491, ps < .01. The predictors of other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering were significantly correlated with the five health outcomes.

Correlations of the study variables

+ p  < .1

* p  < .05

** p  < .01

Table ​ Table2 2 presents the results of multivariate linear regression of other-oriented volunteering on the five health outcomes. Results showed that other-oriented volunteering was significantly predictive of better mental health, β = .082, physical health, β = .087, life satisfaction, β = .071, and social well-being, β = .106, ps < .01, as well as fewer depressive symptoms, β = −.044, p  < .05. The results were held even accounting for multiple pertinent socio-demographic variables. Likelihood ratio estimates found that additional participation in voluntary services in the form of other-oriented volunteering resulted in an 8.54% increase in mental health, 9.08% in physical health, 7.35% in life satisfaction, and 11.11% in social well-being, as well as 4.30% decrease in depression, giving evidence that higher participation in voluntary services pertinent to other-oriented volunteering contributes to better health benefits cumulatively.

Multivariate linear regression of other-oriented volunteering on the health outcomes of mental and physical health, life satisfaction, social well-being, and depression

Moreover, self-oriented volunteering was significantly predictive of better mental health, β = .063, physical health, β = .069, life satisfaction, β = .036, and social well-being, β = .053, ps < .05, but did not significantly predict depressive symptoms, β = −.021, p  > .05 (Table ​ (Table3). 3 ). Likelihood ratio estimates showed that additional participation in voluntary services in the form of self-oriented volunteering resulted in a 6.50% increase in mental health, 7.14% in physical health, 3.66% increase in life satisfaction, and 5.44% increase in social well-being, also giving evidence to the cumulative effects of self-oriented volunteering on health benefits.

Multivariate linear regression of self-oriented volunteering on the health outcomes of mental and physical health, life satisfaction, social well-being, and depression

The Wald test of parameters equivalence constraint was performed to examine whether the effects of other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering on health outcomes were significantly different. The predictors of other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering were first put into two regression equations separately while retaining all the socio-demographic covariates in the multivariate linear regression models intact. Then, the two regression equations were simultaneously pooled in a single comparison model and the parameters of other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering were set to be equivalent (β other-oriented  = β self-oriented ). Results showed that other-oriented volunteering had significantly stronger effects on the health outcomes of mental and physical health, life satisfaction, and social well-being than did self-oriented volunteering (Table ​ (Table4), 4 ), but they did not differ in the effect on depression. The strongest different effect was for social well-being (difference in betas), then life satisfaction, and mental and physical health. The beta differences range from .053 to.018.

Results of parameters equivalence constraints for effects of other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering on health outcomes a

a The socio-demographic variables adjusted in the multivariate linear regression models were also controlled in the parameters equivalence constraints model

b Difference in Betas is simply (β other-oriented – βself-oriented ); β = regression beta; SE = stand error

*** p  < .001

The present study investigated the cumulative effects of other- and self-oriented volunteering on various health outcomes in a population-based sample of general adults, a previously uncharted research topic. Results confirmed that volunteering, regardless of the form being examined, had significant health effects. Past pertinent research investigating the volunteering and health connection mainly focused on a subpopulation of people, e.g. elderly people, or disregarded the interrelated relationships between the health outcomes, hence compromising external validity and accuracy of the results [ 7 – 9 ]. Results of this study add evidence to the literature that volunteering engenders health benefits across various health outcomes in a cumulative way by participation in several voluntary services contemporaneously in the general adult public. Consistent with prior research, the present study supports the beneficial effects of volunteering on mental and physical health, life satisfaction, social well-being and depression. However, despite the cumulative health effects of volunteering across various health outcomes found in this study, the magnitude of these health effects did vary. Most notable are the strongest effect of other-oriented volunteering on social well-being and the strongest effect of self-oriented volunteering on physical health, which reveal the different nature of these two forms of volunteering. Other-oriented volunteering is more other-regarding, altruistic and humanitarian-concerned than is self-oriented volunteering; the latter is more self-enhancing and self-actualizing [ 10 , 11 ]. Thus, more trustworthy interpersonal relationships, a supportive network, a sense of mattering and life meaning are expected for other-oriented volunteering rather than self-oriented volunteering. In contrast, self-oriented volunteering may involve more physical, cultural and career activities that may maximize the physical health of volunteers. However, these postulates do not negate the also robust positive effect of other-oriented volunteering on physical health, and the above explanations are tentative. Hence, more research is needed.

In addition, the Wald test of the parameters equivalence constraint supports the stronger health effects of other-oriented volunteering rather than of self-oriented volunteering, indicating that serving others out of sheer altruism, genuineness and humanitarian concern is important in reaping better health. The serving process of other-oriented volunteering stresses unselfishness, sharing, other-directedness, and generosity, which are counteractive to the ego-centric and self-serving culture that is upheld nowadays and may harm mental and behavioural health [ 23 ]. In fact, some personal intrinsic motives, e.g. narcissism and self-preoccupation, may lead to health-compromising behaviour and then detriment to health [ 23 , 24 ]. Recent mental health research supports the importance of some virtues, e.g. generosity and gratitude, in relation to health [ 25 , 26 ]. Therefore, it is plausible that the health effects of other-oriented volunteering are significantly stronger than those of self-oriented volunteering found in this study (Table ​ (Table4). 4 ). In addition, this difference in intrinsic motives between other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering helps explain why the former can alleviate depression but the latter does not, as self-preoccupation and pursuits are etiologic of depression [ 24 ].

However, when comparing the effects of other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering on depression, the Wald test did not find a significant difference between the two forms of volunteering. This corresponds to the eudaimonic theory of well-being and past research results of volunteering effects on positive and negative affect [ 8 , 27 ]. These results indicate that engaging in meaningful and prosocial behaviours, e.g. volunteering, may effectively enhance positive emotions but may be less efficacious in reducing negative affect or mental distress. This may be due to volunteering that, regardless of the form, is not a direct problem-solving strategy to tackle and resolve negative affect, that is, caused by a specific life situation such as traumatic events and experiences. Hence, the weakest significant effect of other-oriented volunteering, β = −.044, p  < .05, and the weakest and insignificant effect of self-oriented volunteering on depression, β = −.021, p  > .05, are evident in this study. Thus, it is comprehensible to have an insignificant difference when comparing the effects of the two forms of volunteering on depression. Nevertheless, future research should put a lens on different health effects of volunteering on the positive and negative side of health outcomes.

Recent research studies have reported that other-oriented volunteers tend to be more involved, satisfied and persistent in their volunteering work than are self-oriented volunteers [ 11 , 28 ]. Therefore, when promoting the health effects of volunteerism, health professionals, educators and policymakers should note the importance of volunteers of different orientations in influencing the sustainability and provision of services. In fact, a better matching strategy is needed for the alignment of appropriate types of voluntary services to volunteers of different orientations [ 28 , 29 ]. As the results of better health benefits by other-oriented volunteering obtained from this investigation and other pertinent studies show [ 2 , 11 , 29 ], related parties and organizations should highlight the health benefits of serving others in need with altruistic attitudes and humanitarian concerns and promote an other-regarding culture of volunteerism. Table ​ Table1 1 shows a significant correlation between other-oriented and self-oriented volunteering, implying that some volunteers may cut across and simultaneously participate in other- and self-oriented forms of voluntary services. Hence, future research should explore if this mixed form of volunteering might result in comparatively better health benefits than other forms might.

In this study, the adult participants who were older, non-White, had less education, were unmarried, and unemployed had poorer health outcomes across both the other-oriented and the self-oriented volunteering regression models. In fact, people with these background characteristics also tend to volunteer less [ 3 , 7 , 14 ], which would occasion a twofold effect on their health risks. Hence, promoting volunteering opportunities to these people can be a way of keeping them healthy.

Public health, education and policy practitioners are advised to encourage volunteering as a kind of healthy lifestyle among the general public, especially in the form of other-oriented volunteering. They should have social service professionals promote a culture of volunteerism among underprivileged social groups, e.g. elderly people, ethnic minorities, lower-educated people, unmarried and unemployed people. Although there has been a changing trend toward episodic and self-oriented volunteering in recent years [ 11 , 27 , 28 ], highlighting the better health effects of other-oriented volunteering and promoting the basic altruistic and other-regarding nature of volunteerism should be noted for the related practitioners. However, the present study has certain limitations. First, cross-sectional data make causality of the relationships impossible. Second, self-reported health outcomes are less favourable than are the objectively diagnosed health outcomes. Third, broad classification of participation in various types of voluntary services into other- and self-oriented volunteering based on secondary data is less adequate than are first-hand data, which can more effectively help clarify the nature of voluntary services for classification purposes. Hence, it is necessary to be aware of the limitations of the classification approach based on the secondary data used in this study. Lastly, neither the present investigation nor most prior studies have explored possible mediators that link the relationship between volunteering and health, which is important for comprehension of the mechanisms that volunteering engenders on health benefits. Therefore, future studies should address these limitations and provide a more comprehensive picture of the health benefits of volunteering.

Acknowledgements

Genuine thanks to Dr. Marc A. Musick, who initiated and headed the Survey of Texas Adults 2004, and distributed the data of the survey for public use through the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR).

The study was supported by CityU Strategic Research Grants (Project No. 9048093) and General Research Fund (Early Career Scheme) (Project No. 7004508).

Availability of data and materials

Abbreviations, authors’ contributions.

JY drafted the manuscript of this study, including obtaining data from ICPSR, analysing the data, and writing the manuscript. ZZ and TYK participated in reviewing and revising the second draft of the study. ZZ also provided advice on the statistical procedures used in this study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical review was not needed, as CityU does not require an ethical review of existing data, documents, or records for public use.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1 Three of the five health outcome variables were measured by a single question item with a 4-point or a 5-point scale, and some researchers believe this type of outcome should be treated as ordered categorical variables. Therefore, we re-ran the data with Probit regression models. Results showed that the standardized coefficients of Probit regression models were similar to the findings obtained from multivariate linear regression models. In fact, statisticians have argued that when a dependent variable is measured by 4-point or 5-point rank-ordered categories, there would be little difference between the results obtained from ordinal regression and OLS regression [ 20 , 21 ]. When an outcome is measured by an ordered categorical scale, e.g. “Overall, how would you rate your mental health at the present time? Would you say it is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” on a 5-point scale (1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 3 = good, 4 = fair, and 5 = poor), a latent continuous variable, y * , ranging from -∞ to ∞ is denoted. For measurement purposes this is, mapped to an observed variable y. Hence, the above ordinal outcome as an example is in principle related to a continuous, latent variable y * in indicating a person’s level of mental health by category, ranging from “excellent” to “poor”. Therefore, the observed y is related to y * in an equation of “ y i   = m if τ m-1 ≤ y i * <τ m for m = 1 to Ј ”. For easier interpretation, the present study opted for the results of multivariate linear regression models. Readers can contact the first author to obtain the results from Probit regression models for reference.

• About the Hub
• Announcements
• Faculty Experts Guide
• Subscribe to the newsletter

Explore by Topic

• Arts+Culture
• Politics+Society
• Science+Technology
• Student Life
• University News
• Voices+Opinion
• About Hub at Work
• Gazette Archive
• Benefits+Perks
• Health+Well-Being
• Current Issue
• About the Magazine
• Past Issues
• Support Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Subscribe to the Magazine

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Volunteers needed for skin research study

By Hub staff report

Individuals between age 18 and 75 with generally healthy skin are needed to donate small skin samples and/or urine and/or sweat samples for a research study at the Johns Hopkins Department of Dermatology. Eligible participants will be compensated for their time and effort.

For more information, email/call: ctrep@jhmi.edu or 410-502-SKIN. Include protocol #: NA_00033375 in email subject line.

Principal Investigator: Luis Garza, MD, PhD, protocol #: NA_00033375

News Network

• Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Get Email Updates
• Submit an Announcement
• Submit an Event
• Privacy Statement
• Accessibility

Discover JHU

• About the University
• Schools & Divisions
• Academic Programs
• Plan a Visit
• my.JohnsHopkins.edu
• © 2024 Johns Hopkins University . All rights reserved.
• University Communications
• 3910 Keswick Rd., Suite N2600, Baltimore, MD
• X Facebook LinkedIn YouTube Instagram

Ohio State navigation bar

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State
• Search  

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

Public Health Buckeyes: Angela Falconi

BSPH student combines passions for health care, policy

Falconi has been involved in CPH research and is an active member of Ohio State's Pilipino Student Association.

Meet Angela Falconi, a fourth-year student specializing in  environmental public health who aspires to advocate for others through public health policy.

What inspired you to pursue a public health education?

Growing up, I was surrounded by both medicine and public policy because of my parents. Since I was six, my father, a politician and elected official, had me act as his unofficial campaign staff—knocking on doors with him to speak to voters, sitting in on city council meetings and accompanying him to various events. My mother, a pediatric physician, inspired me to pursue a career in medicine by showing me the impact that she’s made on her patients and always encouraging me to learn more about the health care field. When choosing my major, it felt natural to me to combine policy and health into public health.

What public health topics are you passionate about?

“Your zip code determines your health.”

This is one of the most important phrases I have learned in my public health courses, and as a volunteer at Helping Hands Health and Wellness Center, a free clinic which provides health care services for the uninsured and underinsured. I see the realities of this phrase in the patients who I work with. 

As an aspiring elected official, I want to create health care reform which helps individuals the health care system has failed to provide with affordable service.

You spent last summer in Washington, D.C. interning in the U.S. Senate. What was that experience like?

I worked (there) through the IMPACT program, created by the US-Asia Institute in coordination with the Embassy for the Philippines for Filipino students interested in public policy. Working and living in D.C. was one of the best experiences I have had in my undergraduate career because I was able to learn about and research health care policy on the national stage, which is exactly what I hope to do in my future career.

What have you enjoyed most about being involved in research as a student?

I am a research assistant for the Consumer Access Project which utilizes a secret shopper survey of Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance marketplace plan networks to study these barriers and inequities, including disparities related to race. I have loved getting to work with  Wendy Xu as she has helped me learn more about the research process as well as how everyday Americans experience the health care system.

What kind of extracurricular activities are you involved in?

The Pilipino Student Association (PSA) has been my home away from home since the start of my time at Ohio State. It has not only allowed me to learn more about my Filipino culture, but I met my best friend through this organization. I have been involved in PSA in numerous roles: culture night coordinator, vice-president internal, president and now dance leader. 

As dance leader, I lead PSA’s tinikling team. Tinikling is a dance which involves two people beating, sliding, and tapping two bamboo poles on the ground while two people dance above the sticks, trying not to get caught in between them. Our latest performance from PSA’s culture show “Barrio” was in October. I choreographed, taught and performed the modern part of this dance!

What are your goals for the future?

I hope to not only assist individual patients as a physician, but I also hope to help others on the national scale by being an advocate as an elected official. I hope to apply the experiences and lessons that I have learned from my time at Ohio State into my future career in the field of health policy.

More news stories

Public Health Buckeyes: Natalie Hickman

PEP student builds on passion for advocacy

*****      

About The Ohio State University College of Public Health

The Ohio State University College of Public Health is a leader in educating students, creating new knowledge through research, and improving the livelihoods and well-being of people in Ohio and beyond. The College's divisions include biostatistics, environmental health sciences, epidemiology, health behavior and health promotion, and health services management and policy. It is ranked 29 th  among all colleges and programs of public health in the nation, and first in Ohio, by  U.S. News and World Report. Its specialty programs are also considered among the best in the country. The MHA program is ranked 8 th , the biostatistics specialty is ranked 22 nd , the epidemiology specialty is ranked 25 th and the health policy and management specialty is ranked 17 th .

• CEPH Report for Accreditation 2017-2024
• CPH Competencies Surveys

Faculty and Staff

• Faculty and Staff Resources
• Emergency and Safety Information

News and Communications

• News and Events
• Website Feedback

© 2024 College of Public Health            250 Cunz Hall, 1841 Neil Ave.            Columbus, OH 43210            Phone: 614-292-8350            Contact Admissions             Request an alternate format of this page             Privacy Policy

• Dean's Message
• Mission, Vision and Values
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusive Excellence
• Strategic Plan
• Undergraduate Programs
• Graduate Programs
• Office of Academic Programs and Student Services
• Biostatistics
• Environmental Health Sciences
• Epidemiology
• Health Behavior and Health Promotion
• Health Services Management and Policy
• Health Outcomes and Policy Evaluation Studies
• Center for Public Health Practice
• Information Sessions
• BSPH + MPH in 5 years
• Dual/Combined Degrees
• Minors/ Specializations/ Certificates
• Bachelor of Science in Public Health
• Master of Public Health
• Master of Health Administration
• Master of Science
• Doctor of Philosophy
• Student Forms and Resources
• Minors / Specializations / Certificates
• Competencies
• Course Descriptions
• Scholarships
• Student Organizations
• Advising and Student Services
• CPH Graduate Student Handbook
• Curriculum Guides
• MPH Applied Practice Experience
• MPH Integrative Learning Experience
• MHA Administrative Residency
• CPH Undergraduate Student Handbook
• Internships and Research
• Education Abroad
• Career Development
• Public Health Career Paths
• Career Events
• Career Resources
• Employer Resources
• Dean’s Thought Leader Series
• Public Health Buckeyes
• Media Requests