MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127981245 · doi:10.1037/a0037610

The benefits associated with volunteering among seniors: A critical review and recommendations for future research.

2014· review· en· W2127981245 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Bulletin · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityQuebec Network for Research on AgingUniversity of WindsorBaycrest Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDementiaPsychosocialGerontologyPsychologyCognitionPopulationActivities of daily livingClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an urgent need to identify lifestyle activities that reduce functional decline and dementia associated with population aging. The goals of this article are to review critically the evidence on the benefits associated with formal volunteering among older adults, propose a theoretical model of how volunteering may reduce functional limitations and dementia risk, and offer recommendations for future research. Database searches identified 113 papers on volunteering benefits in older adults, of which 73 were included. Data from descriptive, cross-sectional, and prospective cohort studies, along with 1 randomized controlled trial, most consistently reveal that volunteering is associated with reduced symptoms of depression, better self-reported health, fewer functional limitations, and lower mortality. The extant evidence provides the basis for a model proposing that volunteering increases social, physical, and cognitive activity (to varying degrees depending on characteristics of the volunteer placement) which, through biological and psychological mechanisms, leads to improved functioning; we further propose that these volunteering-related functional improvements should be associated with reduced dementia risk. Recommendations for future research are that studies (a) include more objective measures of psychosocial, physical, and cognitive functioning; (b) integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in prospective study designs; (c) explore further individual differences in the benefits associated with volunteering; (d) include occupational analyses of volunteers' specific jobs in order to identify their social, physical, and cognitive complexity; (e) investigate the independent versus interactive health benefits associated with volunteering relative to engagement in other forms of activity; and (f) examine the relationship between volunteering and dementia risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it