University of Groningen

Who volunteers and why? Understanding the role of resources and motivations in
participation in voluntary work
Niebuur, Jacobien

DOI:
10.33612/diss.133869314

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:
2020

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Niebuur, J. (2020). Who volunteers and why? Understanding the role of resources and motivations in
participation in voluntary work. [Thesis fully internal (DIV), University of Groningen]. University of
Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.133869314

Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the
author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.
More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-
amendment.

Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the
number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 11-05-2025

 Determinants of participation in voluntary
work: a systematic review and meta-
analysis of longitudinal cohort studies

Jacobien Niebuur
Lidy van Lente
Aart. C. Liefbroer
Nardi Steverink
Nynke Smidt

BMC Public Health (2018) 18:1213

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 33
2 15-8-2020 17:27:08
 CHAPTER 2

ABSTRACT
Background: Participation in voluntary work may be associated with individual and
societal benefits. Because of these benefits and as a result of challenges faced by
governments related to population ageing, voluntary work becomes more important
for society, and policy measures are aimed at increasing participation rates. In order
to effectively identify potential volunteers, insight in the determinants of volunteering
is needed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review including meta-analyses.

Methods: A systematic search in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, Business Source

Premier, and EconLit was performed on August 12th 2015. We included longitudinal
cohort studies conducted in developed countries that quantified factors associated
with volunteering among samples from the general adult population. Two reviewers
independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk
of bias of the included studies using the QUIPS tool. Estimates reported in the
papers were transformed into Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals. For each
determinant, random-effects meta-analyses were used to generate summary
estimates.

Results: We found that socioeconomic status, being married, social network size,
church attendance and previous volunteer experiences are positively associated with
volunteering. Age, functional limitations and transitions into parenthood were found
to be inversely related to volunteering.

Conclusions: Important key factors have been identified as well as gaps in the current
literature. Future research should be directed towards deepening the knowledge
on the associations between the factors age, education, income, employment and
participation in voluntary work. Moreover, major life course transitions should be
studied in relation to volunteering.

34

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 34 15-8-2020 17:27:08

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

BACKGROUND
Participation in voluntary work can have several individual and societal benefits.
It is inversely related to mortality1,2, depression2,3 and functional limitations3 , and
positively related to self-rated health3. In turn, improved individual health is reflected
in more societal sustainability, for example in terms of health care systems 4 .
Furthermore, societal benefits of volunteering include increases in social solidarity
and individuals’ involvement in society5 as well as economic benefits, for example
in terms of contributions to Gross Domestic Product levels6. Because of the various
socioeconomic benefits of volunteering and because of the current challenges
2
faced by many developed countries related to population ageing, many policy
measures are aimed nowadays at increasing participation rates in volunteering. In
order to effectively target potential volunteers and to utilize the benefits related to
volunteering, there is a need to understand the key factors related to participation
in voluntary work. One important set of key factors are socio-demographic
characteristics. By socio-demographic characteristics we mean characteristics that
signify an individual’s position in society. This includes indicators of an individual’s
position in the family domain (such as partner status and social network integration),
the economic domain (such as education and income) and in the health domain (such
as wellbeing). All these socio-demographic characteristics are examples of factors
for which an association with volunteering is expected. Our research questions are:

1. What are the determinants (e.g. socio-demographic characteristics) of participation

in voluntary work?

2. What is the magnitude and direction of the relationship between identified

determinants (e.g. socio-demographic characteristics) and participation in
voluntary work?

Voluntary work is defined as “unpaid non-compulsory work; that is, time individuals
give without pay to activities performed either through an organization or directly for
others outside their own household”5. Research on factors influencing participation in
voluntary work is extensive. However, there is large heterogeneity in the determinants
measured as well as in the findings. Inconsistencies in findings may result from,
among other factors, the use of incomparable study samples, the use of different
study designs and the omission of important confounders in analyses. By conducting
a systematic review and meta-analysis, sources of heterogeneity in the findings can

35

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 35 15-8-2020 17:27:08

 CHAPTER 2

be further explored and reliable key factors influencing participation in voluntary

work can be identified.

Although, earlier systematic reviews on determinants of participation in voluntary

work provide important contributions to the knowledge on factors related to
volunteering, most of them focussed on study samples consisting exclusively of
volunteers recruited at voluntary organizations7,8, older people7, or volunteers
working for a specific cause (i.e. volunteering in the care of people with mental
illnesses)8. Moreover, both reviews included studies using diverse study designs
(both quantitative as well as qualitative), and findings were not quantified7,8. Wilson9
provided an overview of theories explaining volunteerism and described several
well-known determinants of volunteering, including level of education (positive
association), age (curvilinear relationship), gender (in North-America, women are
more likely to volunteer than men), marital status (married people are more likely to
volunteer than non-married people) and health status (positive relationship). As the
overview is based on literature published up until the year 2000, the findings did not
result from conducting a review following a systematic approach, and associations
were not quantified by conducting meta-analyses, there is need for updating the
knowledge on the determinants of participation in voluntary work. Our aim was
to improve the current knowledge by conducting a systematic review including a
meta-analysis. Thereby, we aimed at summarizing the available evidence on the
determinants of participation in voluntary work and determining the magnitude and
direction of the relationship between identified determinants and participation in
voluntary work.

METHODS
This systematic review was conducted according to the methods of the Cochrane
Collaboration10 and reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines11.

Search strategy and study selection

A search was conducted in MEDLINE, PsychINFO, SocINDEX, Business Source
Premier and EconLit, on August 12th, 2015. The search strategy included a combination
of terms related to (a) participation in voluntary work (e.g. voluntary work, volunteers,
unpaid work) and (b) determinants (e.g. determinant, factor, association, relation,
reason) (see Appendix 1).

36

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 36 15-8-2020 17:27:08

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Articles were selected if they are (a) peer-reviewed full text publications reporting
an association between at least one individual factor (contextual factors are beyond
the scope of this study) and participation in formal voluntary work (i.e. voluntary work
carried out for organizations12) (yes/no) in a quantitative way using a longitudinal
prospective cohort study design (i.e. studies in which the determinant is measurement
at a moment in time before the outcome was measured), and (b) making use of
a study sample consisting of adults aged 18 and over from a general population
from a developed country (i.e. Japan and countries in Europe, North America and
Oceania). Moreover, (c) the article has to be published in English, French, German or
Dutch within the time period 2010 – 2015. Given the large number of publications on 2
the topic, we decided to focus on recent publications from 2010 onwards. Articles
exclusively including informal volunteering as the outcome were excluded. In case
it is unclear whether volunteering was formal or informal, articles were included and
labelled as ‘mixed type of voluntary work’. Finally, articles focusing on very specific
cases of volunteering such as disaster volunteering, corporate volunteering and
volunteer-tourism were excluded as well, because of their limited comparability with
volunteering in the general population, but also because the motives to participate
in these kinds of voluntary work may differ from situation to situation. We focus
on longitudinal rather than on cross-sectional studies, as the former offer better
opportunities for temporal ordering of factors.

The titles and abstracts of all identified records were screened for eligibility by two
reviewers (J.N. and L.v.L.) independently. Subsequently, the same two reviewers
independently screened the full-text of all potentially eligible articles. Finally, all
references of included articles were screened by one reviewer (J.N.) for potentially
eligible articles.

Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias

Two reviewers (J.N. and L.v.L.) independently extracted the data regarding the
characteristics of the study sample (country, mean age, % female, inclusion criteria),
the year of baseline measurement, study duration, determinant measurement,
outcome measurement, sample size, volunteering at baseline (%), volunteering
at follow-up (%), and the results (association between the determinant(s) and the
outcome). The same two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias of the
included articles by using the QUIPS (Quality In Prognosis Studies) tool13. The following
domains were assessed as potential sources for risk of bias: study participation, study

37

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 37 15-8-2020 17:27:09

 CHAPTER 2

attrition, measurement of the determinants and the outcome, study confounding

and statistical analysis and reporting (see Appendix 2). Overall disagreement was
evaluated and expressed as percentage of agreement and kappa statistics14 . In a
consensus meeting disagreements were discussed and resolved. If consensus could
not be reached, a third reviewer (N.Sm.) made the final decision.

Statistical analysis
In case the results of at least two studies are available, meta-analyses were
conducted, using the statistical program Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (3rd version).
If studies present several models, estimates from the most complete (fully adjusted)
model were used. Odds Ratios (ORs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were used,
or if needed calculated using the supplemental material of Kuiper et al.15, to conduct
meta-analyses. When insufficient information was available for transforming effect
sizes to ORs with 95% CIs, study authors were contacted to obtain the missing
information.

In case articles used the same study sample, a-priori defined criteria were used
to select the study for the meta-analysis. In order of importance and for each
determinant separately, articles were selected based on (a) outcome used in the
study (‘formal voluntary work’ was preferred above ‘mixed type of voluntary work’),
(b) measurement of the determinant (the determinant measurement was most
comparable to other included studies), (c) study sample (the study sample that was
the most comparable to the study samples of included studies in the meta-analysis,
in terms of the proportion of volunteers at baseline, the age range of participants at
baseline, and inclusion criteria for the baseline study sample), (d) sample size (the
study with the largest sample size was preferred over smaller studies), and (e) number
of determinants quantitatively measured in the study. In case articles presented both
a static (e.g. being married) as well as a change score (e.g. transition into marriage)
for a certain determinant, the score that is most comparable to the scores used in
other included studies for this determinant was used. A random effect method was
applied to calculate pooled effect sizes10.

Meta-regression and subgroup analyses

Heterogeneity between studies was assessed by using the Index of Inconsistency
(I2)16. In case of substantial heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), sources of heterogeneity between
studies were explored by conducting either subgroup analysis (in case < 10 studies

38

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 38 15-8-2020 17:27:09

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

are available) or univariable random-effects meta-regression10 (in case ≥ 10 studies

are available) with regard to the following a-priori defined criteria: (a) outcome
measurement (formal voluntary work versus mixed measure); (b) determinant
measurement, based on (b1) measurement scale (continuous versus dichotomous
scores), (b2) type of measurement (static versus change scores, because the presence
of a certain event, (e.g. being married), may have a different association with the
outcome than the transition into a certain event (e.g. transition into marriage)), and
(b3) conceptual differences in the measurement of the determinant; (c) proportion
of volunteers in the baseline study sample; (d) mean age at baseline, because some
determinants may be important to a different extent for study samples for which 2
participation in paid work is more or less common; (e) continent in which the study
was performed (United States of America (USA), Europe, other), because differences
in government regimes and culture may influence the association between a
certain determinant and the outcome; (f) year of baseline measurement, because
although the included studies were published between 2010 and 2015, the baseline
measurement year varies substantially and determinants of participation in voluntary
work may differ for different birth cohorts; (g) duration of follow-up (for time-variant
variables only); and (h) the risk of bias for each methodological quality domain
separately (low risk of bias versus high/unclear risk of bias).

Publication bias
The likelihood of publication bias was assessed graphically by constructing funnel
plots for each determinant (in case at least ten studies were available) using the
statistical program Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (3rd version). Asymmetry of the
funnel plots was tested using Egger’s method. Publication bias is likely if p<0.1017.

RESULTS
The search resulted in the identification of 13.225 records after removing duplicates.
A total of 3774 records were published in 2010 or later. The selection process is
presented in Fig. 1. Finally, 24 articles were included in the systematic review18–41.
Characteristics of the included articles are provided in Table 1. In Appendix 3 an
overview of all determinants measured in included studies is provided.

Several articles were based on the same study samples. Four articles were based on
data from the Survey of Midlife Development in the United States29,31,32,36. Another four
articles were based on data of the Health and Retirement Study22,23,38,39. Two articles

39

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 39 15-8-2020 17:27:09

 CHAPTER 2

used data from the Jena Study on Social Change and Human Development 27,28.
Moreover, two articles used data from the Switzerland Household Panel33,34 . Finally,
two articles were based on the American Changing Lives survey20,25 .

Figure 1 Flow Diagram representing the selection process of articles

40

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 40 15-8-2020 17:27:11

 Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Author Cohort Country Study Mean SD Range Female Year of Study Waves Outcome Outcome Type of Sample Volunteering Volunteering

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 41
population1 age2 age3 age3 (%) baseline3 duration (n) measurement voluntary size (n) at baseline at follow-up
4
(years) (years) work (%) (%)
Ajrouch et SRHLC5 USA6 Adults aged 53,9 N.R.7 50-100 60,3 1992 13 2 Volunteering “Do you do any Mixed 499 N.R. 32,3
al. 18 ≥50 y {No vs. Yes} volunteering?”
Bartels et BHPS8 UK9 Employed N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 1991 16 11 Volunteering Volunteering Formal 12378 N.R. N.R.
al. 19 individuals {Yes vs. No} is measured as
aged ≤ 60 y “being active in
organizations”
Bekkers 30 GINPS10 NL11 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 2002 4 3 - Volunteer Volunteering Mixed 123312 ; 56,6 44,1
engagement is measured as 73113
- Volunteer “being active as
cessation a volunteer in
the past year”
Broese van LASA14 NL Adults aged 65,1 5,0 55-69 N.R. 199215 / 6 317 Volunteering Current Formal 135717 ; 38,017 / 45,018 N.R.
Groenou & between 55 200216 {Yes vs. No} volunteering 138818
Van Tilburg and 69
35

1 All included studies represent (subgroups of) the general population. Specification of subgroups is provided here
2 Measured at baseline, unless denoted otherwise
3 Represents the measurement in the year that is used as baseline for the analysis
4 Type: Formal volunteering (through an organization), Mixed (no distinction between formal and informal volunteering, or type of volunteering (formal/informal) not specified
5 Social Relations and Health over the Life Course
6 United States of America
7 Not Reported
8 British Household Panel Survey
9 United Kingdom
10 Giving in the Netherlands Panel Study
11 The Netherlands
12 Volunteers
13 Non-volunteers
14 Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam
15 Cohort 1
16 Cohort 2

41
DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

17 For each cohort

2

15-8-2020 17:27:11
 42
Choi & MIDUS18 USA English N.R. N.R. N.R. 54,0 1995 / 9 2 - Volunteer “On average, Formal 917 35,6 41,4
Chou 36 speaking 1996 engagement about how many
adults aged - Volunteer hours per month
55-84 y at cessation do you spend

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 42
wave 2 with doing formal
CHAPTER 2

≥1 telephone volunteer work?”

in the
household
Cramm & N.A.19 NL Older adults 77,5 5,8 70-101 57,0 2011 2 2 Volunteering Voluntary Formal 588 18,5
Nieboer 37 aged ≥70 {Yes vs. No} activities carried
y living in out in the past
Rotterdam year 15,5
Curl et al. 38 HRS20 USA Adults 73,8 6,5 N.R. 48,3 1998 12 7 Volunteering Voluntary work Formal 4788 34,6
aged ≥65 {Yes vs. No} carried out in the
y reported past 12 months
being able
to drive at
baseline N.R.
Curl et al. 39 HRS21 USA Respondents 73,921/ 5,422 / N.R. 50,0 1998 12 7 Volunteering Voluntary work Formal 291423 40,022 / 41,523
and spouses, 71,522 5,023 {Yes vs. No} carried out in the
aged ≥65 y, past 12 months
able to drive
at baseline N.R.
Einolf & PSID24 USA Individuals N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 2003 2 2 -Volunteering “How often did Formal 45225 ; Rates at baseline and follow-
Philbrick 40 never {Yes vs. No} you volunteer at 61026 up are not presented. Average
married at -Religious or through….” rates for the two waves:
baseline volunteering 25,3%27 ; 15,5%28
{Yes vs. No}

18 Survey of Midlife Development in the United States

19 Not applicable
20 Health and Retirement Study
21 Husbands
22 Wives
23 1457 couples
24 Panel Study of Income Dynamics
25 Males
26 Females
27 Volunteering
28 Religious volunteering

15-8-2020 17:27:11
 Hank & SHARE29 11 Individuals N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 2004 / 2 2 - Volunteer “Have you done Formal 18057 10,0 10,8

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 43
Erlinghagen European aged ≥50 y 2005 engagement any of these
41
countries - Volunteer activities in the
cessation last month?” -
“done voluntary
or charity work”
Johnston 20 ACL30 USA Individuals 54,031 N.R. N.R. 54,0 1986 16 4 - Volunteering Volunteer work Formal 128332; 40,0 53,0
aged 25 {Yes vs. No} done in the last 98333 ;
and older - Religious year 127234
living in the institution
contiguous volunteering
US. {Yes vs. No}
- Nonreligious
institution
volunteering
{Yes vs. No}
Lim & Mac FM35 USA Respondents 47,3 16,0 N.R. 47,0 2006 5 2 Volunteering Volunteering Mixed 510 46,0 51,0
Gregor 21 who report {Yes vs. No} in the past 12
that they do months
not attend
religious
services on a
regular basis

29 Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe

30 American’s Changing Lives Study
31 Approximately
32 Volunteering sample
33 Religious institution volunteering sample
34 Nonreligious institution volunteering sample

43
DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

35 Faith Matters Survey

2

15-8-2020 17:27:11
 44
McNamara HRS21 USA Individuals 63,036 N.R. N.R. 58,7 2000 / 8 5 -Volunteer “Have you Formal 461137; 45,1 N.R.
& Gonzales aged 50 - 80 2001 engagement spend any time 296138
22
-Volunteer in the past 12
cessation months doing

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 44
volunteer work
CHAPTER 2

for charitable
organizations?”
Mike et al. 23 HRS21 USA Individuals 71,9 10,37 N.R. 54,0 2006 / 2 2 Volunteering “Have you spent Mixed 5017 0,0 13,6
≥50 y, not 2008 {Yes vs. No} any time in
volunteering the past year
and currently volunteering?”
working/
unemployed/
retired
Nesbit 24 PSID25 USA Household 44,0 N.R. N.R. 55,0 2003 2 2 -Religious Volunteering in Formal 1129939; 27,0 29,0
heads and volunteering the last year 11354 40
their spouses {Yes vs. No}
-Secular
volunteering
{Yes vs. No)
Okun et al. 25 ACL31 USA Individuals 71,9 5,5 N.R. 71,0 1986 3 2 Volunteer Having done Formal 380 100,0 61,0
aged ≥65 cessation volunteer work
y, reported in the last 12
volunteering months
in the past
year
Parkinson 26 ALSWH41 Australia Women aged N.R. N.R. N.R. 100 1996 9 4 Volunteering “Do you do Mixed 7088 N.R. 24,5
70-75 y {Yes vs. No} any volunteer
work for any
community
or social
organizations?”

36 Mean age is measured over all included waves

37 Outcome engagement
38 Outcome cessation
39 Religious volunteering
40 Secular volunteering
41 Australian Longitudinal Study On Womens Health

15-8-2020 17:27:11
 Pavlova & Jena Germany Individuals 38,1 43 / 3,9 44 / N.R. 57,4 44 / 2005 44 / 1 2 -Volunteer Participation in Formal 156044; 20,644; 31,3

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 45
Silbereisen study42 aged 16-43 60,2 44 3,9 45 44,645 2009 45 engagement voluntary work 51845 34.5 45
27
and 56-75 -Volunteer in the past 12
years cessation months
Pavlova & Jena Germany Individuals 65,9 5,8 56-76 52,4 2009 1 2 Volunteering Participation in Formal 602 32,5 35,9
Silbereisen Study43 aged 56-75 {Yes vs. No} voluntary work
28
years in the past 12
months
Son & MIDUS21 USA English 42,8 12,5 N.R. 55,0 1995 10 2 Volunteering “On average, Formal 3257 39,0 43,0
Wilson 29 speaking {Yes vs. No} about how
adults aged many hours do
25-74 y, you spend per
living in the month doing
coterminous volunteer work?”
US
Son & MIDUS21 USA English 42,8 12,5 N.R. 55,0 1995 10 2 Volunteering “On average, Formal 3257 39,0 43,0
Wilson 31 speaking {Yes vs. No} about how
adults aged many hours do
25-74 y, you spend per
living in the month doing
coterminous volunteer work?”
US
Son & MIDUS21 USA English 42,8 12,5 N.R. 55,0 1995 10 2 Volunteering “On average, Formal 3257 39,0 43,0
Wilson 32 speaking {Yes vs. No} about how
adults aged many hours do
25-74 y, you spend per
living in the month doing
coterminous volunteer work?”
US

42 Jena Study on Social Change and Human Development

43 Sample 1 Age group 30-43

45
DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

44 Sample 2 Age group 56-75

2

15-8-2020 17:27:11
 46
Voorpostel SHP45 Switzer- Adults aged 43,646 12,047 18-60 55,0 1999 8 9 Volunteering “Do you have Formal 8185 48 42,5 49 / 31,650 39,550 / 29,551
& Coffé 33 land 18 - 60 y /44,2 47 /11,848 {Yes vs. No} honorary or
voluntary
activities

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 46
within an
CHAPTER 2

association, an
organization or
an institution?”
Voorpostel SHP46 Switzer- Adults aged 21,0 2,4 18-26 47,0 1999 10 11 Volunteering “Do you have Formal 3199 51 Volunteering rates at
& Coffé 34 land 18 – 26 y, no {Yes vs. No} honorary or baseline and follow-up are
change in voluntary not presented. The average
partnership activities overall volunteering rate for
of parents within an the two waves is 34,9
during study association, an
organization or
an institution?”

45 Switzerland Household Panel

46 Males, measured at follow-up
47 Females, measured at follow-up
48 3692 males and 4493 females
49 Males
50 Females
51 1788 respondents and their mothers and 1331 respondents and their fathers

15-8-2020 17:27:11
 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Likelihood of risk of bias

The results of the risk of bias assessment of included studies are presented in Table 2.

The risk of bias varied substantially. Most methodological flaws (i.e. high risk of
bias) were found for (2a) adequate follow-up rate (62.5% high risk of bias), and (1b)
adequate participation rate (29.2% high risk of bias). The inter-rater agreement was
good (agreement 91.7% (484/528); kappa statistic: 0.78)14 .

2
Determinants of participation in voluntary work
Meta-analyses were conducted for a total of 20 determinants (see Appendix 4). For
each determinant, all studies reporting an association between the determinant and
the outcome are listed in the appendix, as well as the studies selected for inclusion
in the meta-analysis.

Demographic factors
The following demographic factors are studied in relationship to participation in
voluntary work: age, gender, ethnicity, marital status and parental status. Forest plots
for all demographic factors are presented in multi panel Fig. 2 below.

Age The mean age at baseline of the studies included in the meta-analysis varied from
42.8 years (range 25 to 74 years)32 to 77.5 years (range 70 to 101 years)37. The results
of the meta-analysis are heterogeneous (see Fig. 2a). Six studies (11,21,24,26,30,36)
(out of eleven) found that older people are less likely to volunteer, no associations
in the opposite direction were found. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by
conducting meta-regression analyses and subgroup analyses (see Table 3).

47

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 47 15-8-2020 17:27:11

 Table 2 Risk of Bias table (Based on QUIPS*)

48
Author 1. Study 2. Study 3. Determinant 4. Outcome 5. Study confounding 6. Statistical
participation attrition measurement measurement 5a. Confounders 5d. Confounders analysis and

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 48
measured accounted for in analysis reporting
CHAPTER 2

1a. Consecutive series of participants

1b. Adequate participation rate (>70%)
2a. Adequate follow-up rate ( ≥80%)
2b. No important differences between participants
and drop-out
3a. ≥70% complete data for each determinant
3b. Method and setting of the measurement is the
same for all study participants
3c. Appropriate methods of imputation
4a. Outcome measurement truly captures
volunteering
4b. Method and setting of measurement is the
same for all study participants
5a1. Age
5a2. Socioeconomic Status
5a3. Gender
5a4. Participation in voluntary work at baseline
5b. Method and setting of measurement
is the same for all study participants
5c. Appropriate methods of imputation
5d1. Age
5d2. Socioeconomic Status
5d3. Gender
5d4. Participation in voluntary work at baseline
6a. Statistical model adequate for study design
6b. No overfitting
6c. No selective reporting of results

Ajrouch et al. 18 + + - ? + + N.A.52 + + + + + - + N.A. + + + - + + +

19
Bartels et al. + ? ? ? ? + ? + + - + + + + ? - + + + + + +
Bekkers 30 - ? - + ? + ? + + + + + + + ? - - - - + + +
Broese van Groenou & + - - ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +
Van Tilburg 35

Choi & Chou 36 + - - + ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + +/- 53 +

Cramm & Nieboer 37 - - - - ? + N.A. + + + + + + + N.A. + + + + + - +
Curl et al. 38 + ? ? ? + + N.A. + + + + + + + N.A. + + + + + + +
Curl et al. 39 + ? ? ? + + N.A. + + + + + + + N.A. + + + + + + +

52 * QUIPS: Quality of Prognosis Studies in Systematic Reviews. Assessment: + (Yes) (represents low risk of bias); - (No) (represents high risk of bias); ? (Unclear) (represents uncertain risk of bias,
insufficient information was available to assess the risk of bias)
Not Applicable
53 For the outcome volunteer engagement (starting) there is no over fitting, so low risk of bias, but for the outcome volunteer cessation (quitting), there is slight over fitting of the model, so high
risk of bias.

15-8-2020 17:27:11
 Table 2 Continued

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 49
Einolf & Philbrick 40 + ? + ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +
Hank & Erlinghagen 41 + - - ? ? ? ? + ? + + + + ? ? + + + + + + +
Johnston 20 + - - ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? - + + + + + +
Lim & Mac Gregor 21 + ? - ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +
McNamara & Gonzales 22 + ? ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Mike et al. 23 + ? ? ? + + N.A. + + + + + + + N.A. + + + + + + +

24
Nesbit + ? ? ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +

Okun et al. 25 + ? ? ? + + N.A. + + + + + + + N.A. + + + + + + +

Parkinson 26 + ? - ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +
27 54 55 56
Pavlova & Silbereisen + +/- ? -/+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Pavlova & Silbereisen 28 + - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

29
Son & Wilson + + - ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Son & Wilson 31 + + - ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

32
Son & Wilson + + - ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Voorpostel & Coffé 33 + ? - ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +

Voorpostel & Coffé 34 + ? - ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +

54 Baseline participation in the first sample (age group 16-43) was adequate (77%), but the baseline participation in the second sample (age group 56-75) not (52,9%).
55 No information is provided on the follow-up rates. However, the second sample (age group 56-75) is the same as the sample used in Pavlova et al. 2016 and attrition is higher than 20%.

49
DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

56 Attrition in the first sample (age group 16-43) was selective w.r.t. volunteering at T1, for the second sample (age group 56-75) attrition was not selective w.r.t. volunteering at T1.
2

15-8-2020 17:27:12
 Table 3 Univariate random effects meta-regression (methods of moments) and subgroup analyses for AGE

50
Subgroup analyses Results from meta-regression

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 50
Results Heterogeneity
CHAPTER 2

Variable Subgroup Number of studies OR 95% CI P-value I2 Coefficient SD P-value

Outcome measurement Mixed 2 0.986 0.959 – 1.013 0.037 77% Reference
Formal 9 (12 different samples) 0.969 0.946 – 0.992 0.000 89% -0.0168 0.0251 0.504

Determinant measurement Dichotomous 1 (2 different samples) 0.485 0.385 – 0.611 0.248 25% Reference
Continuous 10 (12 different samples) 0.983 0.969 – 0.996 0.000 78% 0.7122 0.1014 0.000

Proportion of volunteers (%) in Continuous 1057 (13 different samples) 0.970 0.950 – 0.991 0.000 88% 0.0000 0.0001 0.591
baseline study sample
0 – 100% 9 (11 different samples) 0.985 0.971 – 0.999 0.000 79% Reference
0% 1 0.440 0.343 – 0.565 N.A. N.A. -0.8053 0.1292 0.000
100% 2 0.747 0.444 – 1.256 0.001 91% -0.0500 0.0292 0.087

Mean age at baseline Continuous 1058 (12 different samples) 0.983 0.969 – 0.996 0.000 78% -0.0000 0.0000 0.200
≤ 55 years 5 (6 different samples) 0.991 0.975 – 1.007 0.000 79% Reference
> 55 years 6 (8 different samples) 0.944 0.904 – 0.986 0.000 89% -0.0296 0.0198 0.135

Continent USA 6 0.978 0.959 – 0.998 0.001 77% Reference

Europe 5 (8 different samples) 0.966 0.933 – 1.000 0.000 91% -0.0026 0.0210 0.900

57 The study of Ajrouch et al. (2014) is not included in this analysis, because the proportion of volunteers (%) in the baseline study sample is not reported.
58 The study of Hank & Erlinghagen (2010) is not included in this analysis, because the mean age at baseline is not reported.

15-8-2020 17:27:12
 Table 3 Continued

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 51
Subgroup analyses Results from meta-regression

Results Heterogeneity

Variable Subgroup Number of studies OR 95% CI P-value I2 Coefficient SD P-value

Year of baseline measurement Continuous 11 (14 different samples) 0.989 0.984 – 0.995 0.000 87% 0.0006 0.0014 0.686
< 2006 8 (10 different samples) 0.970 0.948 – 0.993 0.000 91% Reference
≥ 2006 3 (4 different samples) 0.975 0.959 – 0.991 0.388 1% 0.0110 0.0230 0.631

Risk of bias items

Study participation Unclear/high 9 (12 different samples) 0.975 0.956 – 0.995 0.000 88% Reference
risk of bias
Low risk of 2 0.858 0.623 – 1.192 0.000 93% -0.0099 0.0315 0.754
bias
Study confounding Unclear/high 1 1.000 0.981 – 1.020 N.A. N.A. Reference
risk of bias
Low risk of 10 (13 different samples) 0.970 0.950 – 0.991 0.000 88% -0.0303 0.0331 0.360
bias

51
DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

15-8-2020 17:27:12
 CHAPTER 2

The meta-regression shows that differences in the proportion of volunteers in the

baseline sample affect the association between age and participation in voluntary
work. The negative coefficient from the meta-regression (-0.8053, p = 0.000) shows
that the inverse association between age and the likelihood to volunteer is stronger in
the non-volunteer sample than in the subgroup of samples in which the proportion of
volunteers lies between 0 and 100%. Therefore, the results indicate that the likelihood
to participate in voluntary work declines with age, and that especially the likelihood
to take-up voluntary work (for individuals not volunteering at baseline) strongly
decreases with age.

Gender (female) Two studies (out of eleven) included in the meta-analysis did not
report the percentage of females in the baseline study sample35,41. The percentage
of females in the baseline study samples of the other included studies ranged from
44.6% (32) to 71.0%25 (heterogeneous results; see Fig. 2b).

The results of the meta-regression (Table 4) showed that differences in the continent
(Europe versus USA) of the study sample explain heterogeneity in the association
between gender and participation in voluntary work.

52

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 52 15-8-2020 17:27:12

 Table 4 Univariate random effects meta-regression (methods of moments) and subgroup analyses for GENDER (female)

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 53
Subgroup analyses Results from meta-regression
Results Heterogeneity
Variable Subgroup Number of studies OR 95% CI P-value I2 Coefficient SD P-value
Outcome measurement Mixed 2 1.224 0.895 – 1.674 0.800 0% Reference
Formal 9 (13 different samples) 1.061 0.907 – 1.243 0.000 89% -0.1424 0.2379 0.550

Proportion of volunteers Continuous 959 (13 different samples) 1.099 0.917 – 1.317 0.000 89% 0.0004 0.0003 0.177
(%) in baseline study
sample
0 – 100% 8 1.038 0.805 – 1.268 0.000 93% Reference
0% 2 (3 different samples) 0.918 0.808 – 1.043 0.836 0% -0.0689 0.2266 0.761
100% 3 (4 different samples) 1.306 1.000 – 1.705 0.296 19% 0.2926 0.2156 0.175

Mean age at baseline Continuous 1060 (13 different samples) 1.109 0.920 – 1.337 0.000 86% -0.0000 0.0006 0.952
≤ 55 years 6 (8 different samples) 1.136 0.939 – 1.374 0.000 85% Reference
> 55 years 6 (7 different samples) 1.023 0.765 – 1.367 0.000 90% -0.1296 0.1695 0.445

Continent USA 6 1.279 1.120 – 1.460 0.063 52% Reference

Europe 5 (9 different samples) 0.906 0.770 – 1.067 0.000 77% -0.3531 0.1135 0.002

59 The studies of Ajrouch et al. (2014) and Voorpostel & Coffé (2014) are not included in this analysis, because the proportion of volunteers (%) in the baseline study sample is not reported.
60 The study of Hank & Erlinghagen (2010) is not included in this analysis, because the mean age at baseline is not reported.

53
DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

15-8-2020 17:27:12
 54
Table 4 Continued
Subgroup analyses Results from meta-regression
Results Heterogeneity

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 54
CHAPTER 2

Variable Subgroup Number of studies OR 95% CI P-value I2 Coefficient SD P-value

Year of baseline Continuous 1161 (15 different samples) 1.078 0.931 – 1.249 0.000 88% 0.0008 0.0126 0.951
measurement
< 2006 9 (11 different samples) 1.083 0.924 – 1.270 0.000 91% Reference
≥ 2006 3 (4 different samples) 1.084 0.775 – 1.516 0.474 0% -0.0301 0.2334 0.897

Risk of bias items

Study participation Unclear/high 9 (11 different samples) 1.025 0.871 – 1.205 0.000 89% Reference
risk of bias
Low risk of bias 3 (4 different samples) 1.288 1.094 – 1.515 0.383 2% 0.2436 0.1809 0.178
Study confounding Unclear/high 1 1.174 0.748 – 1.842 N.A. N.A. Reference
risk of bias
Low risk of bias 10 (14 different samples) 1.073 0.922 – 1.250 0.000 89% -0.0898 0.3302 0.786

61 The study of Broese van Groenou & Van Tilburg (2012) includes two different samples in the analyses. For one of the samples, the year of baseline measurement is 1992, for the other sample,
the year of baseline measurement is 2002. No separate results for the two samples are provided. In this specific analysis, we took 1992 as the year of baseline measurement, although this
actually only is the case for the first sample.

15-8-2020 17:27:12
 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

The negative coefficient (-0.3531; p = 0.002) from the meta-regression for Europe
(USA as reference group) shows that the likelihood of females (as opposed to males)
to participate in voluntary work is higher in the USA than in Europe. In the studies
conducted in the USA18,21,24,25,32,38, a positive association between being female and
participation in voluntary work was found (OR: 1.279; 95%CI: 1.120 - 1.460; results are
heterogeneous (I2 = 52%)). In the studies conducted in Europe27,34,35,37,41, no association
between gender and participation in voluntary work was found (OR: 0.906; 95%CI:
0.770 - 1.067; results are heterogeneous (I2 = 77%)). Having a closer look at the
subgroups of studies conducted in the USA and in Europe shows that (a) in Europe no
consistent association between gender and participation in voluntary work was found 2
(both positive as well as negative associations between gender and participation in
voluntary work were found) whereas (b) in the subgroup of studies conducted in the
USA, all odds ratios for the association between being female and participation in
voluntary work are greater than one, indicating a greater likelihood of females (as
opposed to males) to participate in voluntary work.

Ethnicity (white) The results of the studies investigating the association between
ethnicity and participation in voluntary work are heterogeneous and inconsistent
(see Fig. 2c).

Heterogeneity could be explained by conducting subgroup analyses for differences

in (a) year of baseline measurement (no association for the studies with a baseline
measurement after 200521,37 (OR: 1.743; 95%CI: 0.308 - 9.877) and (b) the risk of bias for
the domain study participation (no association for the studies with low risk of bias18,32
(OR: 1.101; 95%CI: 0.929 - 1.034). Forest plots are available upon request.

Marital status (married/partnered) The results of the meta-analysis for marital

status are heterogeneous and inconsistent (see Fig. 2d).

Sources of heterogeneity were explored by conducting meta-regression and

subgroup analyses (see Table 5).

55

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 55 15-8-2020 17:27:12

 Table 5 Univariate random effects meta-regression (methods of moments) and subgroup analyses for MARITAL STATUS (married/partnered)

56
Subgroup analyses Results from meta-regression
Results Heterogeneity

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 56
CHAPTER 2

Variable Subgroup Number of studies OR 95% CI P-value I2 Coefficient SD P-value

Outcome measurement Mixed 1 1.124 0.682 – 1.853 N.A. N.A. Reference
Formal 9 (14 different samples) 1.053 0.931 – 1.192 0.001 62% -0.0650 0.3067 0.832

Proportion of volunteers Continuous 9 62 (14 different samples) 1.087 0.968 – 1.221 0.045 43% -0.0002 0.0002 0.385
(%) in baseline study
sample
0 – 100% 8 (9 different samples) 1.071 0.917 – 1.250 0.001 70% Reference
0% 2 (3 different samples) 1.052 0.902 – 1.227 0.381 0% 0.0468 0.1907 0.806
100% 2 (3 different samples) 1.080 0.564 – 2.066 0.175 43% -0.1253 0.2095 0.550

Mean age at baseline Continuous 863 (12 different samples) 1.147 1.001 – 1.315 0.112 35% -0.0008 0.0004 0.030
≤ 55 years 6 (8 different samples) 1.140 0.911 – 1.427 0.000 76% Reference
> 55 years 5 (7 different samples) 0.999 0.913 – 1.092 0.539 0% -0.1477 0.1419 0.300

Continent USA 4 1.065 0.870 – 1.304 0.049 62% Reference

Europe 6 (11 different samples) 1.054 0.904 – 1.230 0.009 57% -0.0106 0.1314 0.936

Year of baseline Continuous 10 (15 different samples) 1.055 0.937 – 1.188 0.002 59% 0.0088 0.0096 0.361
measurement
< 2006 8 (11 different samples) 1.055 0.928 – 1.199 0.000 69% Reference
≥ 2006 3 (4 different samples) 1.081 0.742 – 1.575 0.522 0% 0.0295 0.2251 0.896

62 The study of Bartels et al. (2013) is not included in this analysis, because the proportion of volunteers (%) in the baseline study sample is not reported.
63 The studies of Bartels et al. (2013) and Hank & Erlinghagen (2010) are not included in this analysis, because the mean age at baseline is not reported.

15-8-2020 17:27:12
 Table 5 Continued

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 57
Subgroup analyses Results from meta-regression
Results Heterogeneity
Variable Subgroup Number of studies OR 95% CI P-value I2 Coefficient SD P-value

Duration of follow-up Continuous 10 (15 different samples) 1.055 0.937 – 1.188 0.002 59% -0.0111 0.0115 0.335
≤ 3 years 3 (7 different samples) 0.990 0.830 – 1.180 0.274 20% Reference
4-7 years 2 1.096 0.822 – 1.463 0.905 0% 0.0776 0.2315 0.737
≥ 8 years 5 (6 different samples) 1.082 0.896 – 1.306 0.000 81% 0.0580 0.1499 0.699

Risk of bias items

Study participation Unclear/high 9 (12 different samples) 1.004 0.897 – 1.124 0.019 52% Reference
risk of bias
Low risk of bias 2 (3 different samples) 1.353 1.105 – 1.657 0.478 0% 0.3106 0.1563 0.047
Study confounding Unclear/high 2 0.846 0.766 – 0.935 0.763 0% Reference
risk of bias
Low risk of bias 8 (13 different samples) 1.115 0.994 – 1.252 0.083 38% 0.2803 0.1113 0.012

57
DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

15-8-2020 17:27:12
 CHAPTER 2

The results of the meta-regression show that differences in (a) mean age at baseline
and (b) the risk of bias for the domains study participation and study confounding
affect the association between marital status and participation in voluntary work.

Firstly, the pooled estimate of the subgroup of the eight studies20,21,27,32,33,35,37,38 for which
information on the mean age at baseline is available, shows that married people are
more likely to participate in voluntary work than unmarried people (OR: 1.147; 95%CI:
1.001 - 1.315; results are homogenous (I2= 35%)). The negative coefficient (-0.0008;
p = 0.030) from the meta-regression shows that the positive association between
being married and participation in voluntary work declines with age; i.e. being married
as a determinant of participation in voluntary work declines in importance with age.

Secondly, the positive coefficients from the meta-regression for the risk of bias
domains study participation (0.3106; p = 0.047) and study confounding (0.2803;
p = 0.012) show that the association between being married and participation in
voluntary work is stronger in studies with low risk of bias on these domains than for
the studies with unclear/high risk of bias.

Although we did not find an overall association between marital status and
participation in voluntary work, several subgroups of studies point towards a positive
association between being married/partnered and the likelihood to volunteer.
The meta-regression shows that as age increases, the association between being
married/partnered and the likelihood to participate in voluntary work gets less strong.
Our findings are in line with earlier research, showing that being married is positively
associated to participation in voluntary work; but associations between marital status
and volunteering after retirement are inconsistent9.

Parental status The results of the studies investigating the association between
parental status and participation in voluntary work are heterogeneous (see Fig. 2e).
Heterogeneity could not be explained by conducting subgroup analyses. Three
studies19,20,33 (out of five) found a positive association between having children and
participation in voluntary work and no negative associations were found. Although,
no firm conclusion can be drawn from these results, the results seem to indicate that
parents with children in their household are more likely to volunteer.

58

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 58 15-8-2020 17:27:12

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Two articles24,33 reported estimates for the association between a transition into
parenthood and participation in voluntary work. The pooled estimate of these two
studies shows that individuals who recently had a child were less likely to participate
in voluntary work than individuals who did not experience the birth of a child in the
household recently (OR: 0.617; 95%CI: 0.487 to 0.781) (see Fig. 2f).

Figure 2 Forest plots for demographic factors

59

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 59 15-8-2020 17:27:12

 CHAPTER 2

Figure 2 Continued

60

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 60 15-8-2020 17:27:12

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Figure 2 Continued

Socioeconomic status Two factors related to socioeconomic status are studied in

relationship to participation in voluntary work. Meta-analyses were conducted for
educational attainment as well as income. The forest plots are presented in multi
panel Fig. 3 below.

Educational attainment The results of the meta-analysis for educational attainment

are heterogeneous (see Fig. 3a). Seven studies18,24,26,32,35,38,41 (out of thirteen) found
that higher educated individuals are more likely to participate in voluntary work, no
associations in the opposite direction were found. Sources of heterogeneity were
explored by conducting meta-regression and subgroup analyses (see Table 6).

61

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 61 15-8-2020 17:27:13

 Table 6 Univariate random effects meta-regression (methods of moments) and subgroup analyses for EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

62
Subgroup analyses Results from meta-regression
Results Heterogeneity

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 62
CHAPTER 2

Variable Subgroup Number of studies OR 95% CI P-value I2 Coefficient SD P-value

Outcome measurement Mixed 3 1.199 0.985 – 1.460 0.000 90% Reference
Formal 10 (14 different samples) 1.153 1.094 – 1.215 0.000 81% -0.0335 0.0591 0.571

Determinant Dichotomous 5 (9 different samples) 1.256 1.001 – 1.577 0.000 86% Reference
measurement
Continuous 8 1.130 1.082 – 1.179 0.000 80% -0.0922 0.0579 0.111

Proportion of volunteers Continuous 9 64 (13 different samples) 1.162 1.104 – 1.223 0.000 79% -0.0001 0.0001 0.176
(%) in baseline study
sample
0 – 100% 10 1.147 1.088 – 1.208 0.000 87% Reference
0% 2 (3 different samples) 1.564 1.321 – 1.853 0.667 0% 0.3080 0.1100 0.005
100% 3 (4 different samples) 1.171 0.870 – 1.577 0.024 68% 0.0083 0.0720 0.908

Mean age at baseline Continuous 1065 (13 different samples) 1.111 1.064 – 1.161 0.000 77% 0.0001 0.0001 0.493
≤ 55 years 7 (8 different samples) 1.148 1.025 – 1.286 0.000 84% Reference
> 55 years 7 (9 different samples) 1.203 1.128 – 1.284 0.000 84% 0.0711 0.0576 0.217

Continent USA 6 1.144 1.075 – 1.218 0.000 84% Reference

Europe 6 (10 different samples) 1.186 1.055 – 1.333 0.000 77% 0.0110 0.0598 0.854
Australia 1 1.430 1.283 – 1.594 N.A. N.A. 0.2164 0.1049 0.039

64 The studies of Ajrouch et al. (2014), Bartels et al. (2013), Parkinson (2010) and Voorpostel & Coffé (2014) are not included in this analysis, because the proportion of volunteers (%) in the baseline
study sample is not reported.
65 The studies of Bartels et al. (2013), Hank & Erlinghagen (2010) and Parkinson (2010) are not included in this analysis, because the mean age at baseline is not reported.

15-8-2020 17:27:13
 Table 6 Continued

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 63
Subgroup analyses Results from meta-regression
Results Heterogeneity
Variable Subgroup Number of studies OR 95% CI P-value I2 Coefficient SD P-value

Year of baseline Continuous 13 (17 different samples) 1.171 1.114 – 1.232 0.000 83% N.A.
measurement
< 2006 11 (13 different samples) 1.187 1.125 – 1.252 0.000 86% Reference
≥ 2006 3 (4 different samples) 1.081 0.852 – 1.372 0.132 47% -0.1167 0.0810 0.150

Duration of follow-up Continuous 13 (17 different samples) 1.171 1.114 – 1.232 0.000 83% N.A.
≤ 3 years 5 (9 different samples) 1.241 1.114 – 1.382 0.003 66% Reference
4-7 years 2 1.062 0.974 – 1.157 0.104 62% -0.1728 0.1068 0.106
≥ 8 years 6 1.225 1.081 – 1.389 0.000 91% -0.0225 0.0840 0.789
Risk of bias items
Study participation Unclear/high 3 (4 different samples) 1.144 1.089 – 1.203 0.000 84% Reference
risk of bias
Low risk of bias 11 (13 different samples) 1.396 0.973 – 2.004 0.007 75% 0.1620 0.0766 0.034
Study confounding Unclear/high 2 1.199 1.089 – 1.321 0.387 0% Reference
risk of bias
Low risk of bias 11 (15 different samples) 1.171 1.110 – 1.235 0.000 85% -0.0105 0.0880 0.905

63
DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

15-8-2020 17:27:13
 CHAPTER 2

Results show that the association between educational attainment and the likelihood
to volunteer is stronger in (a) samples consisting of non-volunteers (compared to
samples consisting of both volunteers and non-volunteers) (0.3080; p = 0.005), (b) the
study conducted in Australia (compared to studies from the USA) (0.2164; p = 0.039)
and (c) studies with low risk of bias on the domain study participation (compared to
studies with high/unclear risk of bias) (0.1620; p = 0.034).

Although the results for the subgroups were heterogeneous, the pooled estimate of
most studies point towards a positive association between educational attainment
and participation in voluntary work. No contradictory results are found. Therefore, the
results indicate that it is likely that there is a positive association between educational
attainment and the likelihood to volunteer and this positive association seems to be
especially strong for volunteer take-up.

Income The meta-analysis for income gives heterogeneous results (see Fig. 3b). Two
studies20,38 (out of six) found a positive association between income and participation
in voluntary work, no associations in the opposite direction were found.

Subgroup analyses show that people with a higher income are more likely to
participate in voluntary work if they are 55 years or older at baseline ((OR: 1.185; 95%CI:
1.106 to 1.270)27,38 or if they are living in the USA (OR: 1.121, 95%CI: 1.037 to 1.211)20,21,32,38.
For the studies with a low risk of bias on the domain study confounding (OR: 1.184;
95%CI: 1.109 to 1.265)21,27,32,38 this positive association between income level and the
likelihood to participate in voluntary work was confirmed. No association between
income and participation in voluntary work was found in the other subgroups with
homogeneous results. Forest plots are available upon request.

64

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 64 15-8-2020 17:27:13

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Figure 3 Forest plots for socioeconomic factors

Participation in productive activities

Two factors related to participation in productive activities are studied in relationship
to participation in voluntary work. Meta-analyses were conducted for participation in
voluntary work at baseline and for employment status. The forest plots are presented
in multi panel Fig. 4 below.

Volunteering at baseline Results for the meta-analysis are heterogeneous (see

Fig. 4a) and heterogeneity could not be explained by subgroup analyses. However,
the estimates of the included studies clearly show that volunteering at baseline is

65

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 65 15-8-2020 17:27:13

 CHAPTER 2

positively associated to participation at follow-up; all included studies found a positive

association between volunteering at baseline and volunteering at follow-up. No firm
conclusion can be drawn about the magnitude of the effect.

Employment status Results from the meta-analysis for employment status are
homogeneous (see Fig. 4b). The pooled estimate shows no association between
employment status and participation in voluntary work (OR: 0.880; 95%CI: 0.773 to
1.001); however, the p-value of 0.053 shows that the association is boundary significant.

Figure 4 Forest plots for participation in productive activities

66

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 66 15-8-2020 17:27:13

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Health status
Five factors related to individual health status are studied in relationship to
participation in voluntary work. Separate meta-analyses were conducted for overall
self-rated health, (increase in) functional limitations, physical health, mental health
and cognitive health. Forest plots for all factors related to individual health status are
presented in multi panel Fig. 5 below.

Overall self-rated health The meta-analysis for overall self-rated health shows that
results are heterogeneous (see Fig.5a).
2
Heterogeneity between the results of the included studies could be explained by
differences in (a) participation in voluntary work (%) at baseline, (b) continent of the
study sample and (c) duration of follow-up. The pooled estimate of the two studies32,38
with a baseline participation rate between 0% and 100%, a long duration of follow-up
(≥ 8 years) and that are conducted in the USA shows that people with a better overall
self-rated health are more likely to participate in voluntary work (OR: 1.192; 95%CI:
1.137 to 1.249). Forest plots are available on request.

Functional limitations Three large studies20,35,38 found a strong negative association

between functional limitations and the likelihood to participate in voluntary work, one
small study18 did not find an association. Although the results are heterogeneous, the
results clearly indicate that the degree of functional limitations is inversely associated
with participation in voluntary work (see Fig. 5b).

The pooled estimates of the two studies18,20 for which the mean age at baseline
was 55 years or below (OR: 0.740, 95%CI: 0.636 to 0.860), the three studies18,20,38
conducted in the USA (OR: 0.782; 95%CI: 0.705 to 0.869), and the two studies20,38 with
a long duration of follow-up (≥ 8 years) (OR: 0.781; 95%CI: 0.695 to 0.877) consistently
show that individuals with more functional limitations are less likely to participate in
voluntary work. Forest plots are available on request.

Two studies18,35 reported an estimate for the association between an increase in the
degree of limitations in functional health and participation in voluntary work (see
Fig. 5c). The pooled estimate of these two studies shows that increases in functional
limitations are associated with a lower likelihood to participate in voluntary work (OR:
0.922; 95%CI: 0.887 to 0.959).

67

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 67 15-8-2020 17:27:13

 CHAPTER 2

Physical health The results for the association between physical health and
participation in voluntary work are heterogeneous (see Fig. 5d).

Pooling the estimates of the studies with formal volunteering as the outcome (as
opposed to the mixed type of volunteering) and the estimates of the studies with low
risk of bias on the domain study confounding leaves us with the same subgroup of
two studies37,38. No association between physical health and participation in voluntary
work was found (OR: 1.013; 95%CI: 0.985 to 1.041) (forest plot is available on request).

Mental health and cognitive health

For both mental health and cognitive health, the results for the association with
participation in voluntary work are heterogeneous (see Fig. 5e and f). Heterogeneity
could not be explained by conducting subgroup analyses.

Figure 5 Forest plots for health status

68

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 68 15-8-2020 17:27:13

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Figure 5 Continued

69

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 69 15-8-2020 17:27:13

 CHAPTER 2

Figure 5 Continued

Social relationships
The social network size and frequency of contacts are studied in relationship to
participation in voluntary work. Separate meta-analyses are conducted for both
factors and the forest plots are presented in multi panel Fig. 6 below.

Social network size The pooled estimate shows that individuals with a larger personal
social network are more likely to participate in voluntary work (OR: 1.030; 95%CI: 1.030
to 1.030) (see Fig. 6a).

Frequency of contacts The results are heterogeneous and inconsistent (see Fig. 6b).
Because of the large variety in the measures for frequency of social contacts used in
the included studies, we did not conduct subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity.

Figure 6 Forest plots for social relationships

70

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 70 15-8-2020 17:27:13

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Figure 6 Continued

Religion
Two factors related to religion are studied in relationship to participation in
voluntary work. Meta-analyses were conducted for church attendance and religious
identification. Forest plots are presented in multi panel Fig. 7 below.

Church attendance The results for the association between church attendance and
participation in voluntary work are heterogeneous (see Fig. 7a). Heterogeneity could
not be explained by conducting subgroup analyses. However, all studies showed
a positive association between church attendance and participation in voluntary
work showing that church attendance and the likelihood to volunteer are positively
associated. No firm conclusions can be drawn about the magnitude of the association.

Religious identification The pooled estimate showed a small positive association

between the level of religious identification and participation in voluntary work (OR:
1.092; 95%CI: 1.000 to 1.193) (see Fig. 7b).

71

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 71 15-8-2020 17:27:13

 CHAPTER 2

Figure 7 Forest plots for religion

Other factors
Two other factors are studied in relationship to participation in voluntary work. Results
for the association between the frequency of attending meetings of groups, clubs
and organizations (i.e. passive membership) and participation in voluntary work (i.e.
active membership) are heterogeneous and inconclusive. The meta-analysis for
driving status shows that people who are able to drive are more likely to participate
in voluntary work. However, as the results are heterogeneous, no conclusions about
the magnitude of the associations can be drawn. The forest plots are available upon
request of the first author.

72

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 72 15-8-2020 17:27:13

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Publication Bias
Publication bias was assessed for the following determinants: age, gender, marital
status and educational attainment. Eggers’ test and visual inspection of the funnel
plots indicate that publication bias is likely for the determinants age (Egger’s test: age
(p=0.007) and marital status (p=0.074)). The funnel plots are available upon request.

DISCUSSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at identifying the contemporary
determinants of participation in voluntary work. Based on the studies included in
2
our review, we found that females (in the USA), married people and people with
children (weak evidence), individuals with higher education (weak evidence) or
income (especially for those individuals aged 55 and over, living in the USA and for
studies in which age was taken into account as a confounder) and people who either
volunteered at baseline, have a larger social network, those who are more religious
and those who attend church more frequently are more likely to volunteer. In contrast,
older people (weak evidence), individuals who recently had a child and individuals
with a higher degree of functional limitations or increases in functional limitations
are less likely to participate in voluntary work. No association with participation in
voluntary work was found for employment status. There was insufficient evidence to
draw firm conclusion about the association between participation in voluntary work
and gender outside the USA, ethnicity, the frequency of contacts and several health
related variables (overall self-rated health, cognitive health and physical health)
(inconclusive results).

Many of our findings are in line with what we expected based on previous literature.
First, we found that older people are less likely to volunteer. Age is believed to be
related to volunteering in a curvilinear way with a peak in middle-age9. The studies
included in our meta-analysis for age all have a mean age around middle-age or
above. The mean age at baseline among the studies included in this meta-analysis
varies from 42.8 years (range 25 to 74 years)32 to 77.5 years (range 70 to 101 years)37 and
adults aged below 40 years are underrepresented in this pool of studies. Therefore,
our finding that age is inversely related to participation in voluntary work confirms
previous findings that showed that the likelihood to volunteer declines with age
from middle-age onwards. We could not assess the association between age and
volunteering before middle-age because of the inclusion of middle-aged and older
adults in the studies in this meta-analysis only.

73

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 73 15-8-2020 17:27:13

 CHAPTER 2

Secondly, we found no association between gender and participation in voluntary

work, but we did find a positive association between being female in the USA and
participation in voluntary work. Thirdly, we found that irrespective of age, married
people are more likely to participate in voluntary work than unmarried people, and
that this association becomes weaker with age. Besides, our analyses confirmed
the importance of education and previous volunteer experiences in predicting the
likelihood to volunteer. Finally, our results show that individual health status itself is not
associated to participation in voluntary work, but the degree to which the individual
experiences limitation in his or her functioning is. Not only the level of functional
limitations was shown to be inversely associated with participation in voluntary
work, also for increases in functional limitations a strong negative association with
volunteering was found.

Our systematic review shows that a large number of individual factors are related to
volunteering across studies and countries. Although a discussion of the theoretical
links between these factors and volunteering is beyond the scope of this review, it
is important to stress that many of the associations established in our meta-analysis
fit into existing theoretical approaches to volunteering. For instance, Wilson and
Musick (1997) in their ‘integrated theory of volunteering’ suggested that volunteering
is affected by three types of capital or resources that individuals may have available:
human, social and cultural resources12. Many of the individual factors that were
found to be associated with volunteering in our review can be clearly linked to these
three types of resources. Factors like income, educational attainment and functional
limitations can be viewed as indicators of the amount of human resources that
individuals have available. Factors like marital status and network size constitute
indicators of social resources. Finally, a factor like religiosity can be viewed as an
indicator of cultural capital or resources that predispose individuals to volunteering.

Strengths and limitations

This review was conducted according to the latest standards for conducting
systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This is the first review for which findings
can be generalized to the general adult population in developed countries and for
which associations between identified factors and participation in voluntary work
were quantified by conducting meta-analyses. We transformed all estimates into
ORs in order to compare the results of included studies. A thorough overview of
all determinants of volunteering studied in recent publications is provided (i.e.

74

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 74 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

demographic determinants, as well as determinants related to socioeconomic

status, participation in other productive activities, health status, religion and social
relationships), instead of focusing on a single determinant only (e.g. health status or
socioeconomic status). Updating the current state of knowledge on factors related to
volunteering was important, as the research on volunteering has taken a giant leap
recently. Results from our search strategy showed that compared to a decade ago,
publications on factors related to volunteering have more than doubled (our search
resulted in 1620 hits for the period 2000-2005 compared to 3774 hits for the period
2010-2015).
2
Some limitations must be mentioned as well. We limited the inclusion of studies to
those published in the period 2010-2015. The choice for including this quite narrow
time period was made for two main reasons. Firstly, because participation in voluntary
work is related not only to individual characteristics but also to macro factors such
as the demographic composition of populations, economic circumstances and
government regimes, we argue that taking into account the most recent time
period is the most relevant period to study in order to increase our knowledge on
contemporary determinants of volunteering and provide insight in the characteristics
of potential volunteers nowadays. Secondly, in trying to find a good balance between
recency and efficiency, we chose to develop a rather broad search strategy without
specifying any determinants beforehand, in order to provide the most comprehensive
overview of all determinants studied in relation to volunteering. We cannot be sure
whether our results would have been different if all studies irrespective of the date
of publication were to be included. Probably the results for the factors studied in
this review would be more heterogeneous due to cohort effects and probably some
additional factors studied in earlier publications may have been identified. Moreover,
although the studies included in this review were all published recently, the vast
majority (79%) of the included studies used data with baseline measurements before
the year 2005. Potentially, the results would have been different if we would have
limited the inclusion of studies to those using recent data. Our search was conducted
in August 2015 and several relevant articles have been published afterwards42–46.
The results of this articles are in line with the results included in this systematic
review and meta-analysis, showing for example that individuals in worse mental
health are less likely to participate in voluntary work 42, religiosity in adulthood is
positively associated to volunteering43, and that previous volunteer experiences, good
health and higher education are positively associated to volunteering44 . Moreover,

75

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 75 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 CHAPTER 2

two studies investigated the association between providing care to grandchildren

and volunteering45,46 but with opposite results. Therefore, it seems unlikely that
including studies published after August 2015 would alter the conclusions drawn in
the current study. Moreover, the inclusion of studies was limited to studies written in
English, Dutch, French or German. The inclusion of only English, Dutch, French and
German language studies may have led to missing some studies, however there is
little evidence that exclusion of non-English-language studies leads to systematic
bias in systematic reviews47–50.

Visual inspection of the forest plots and Egger’s test have shown the presence of
funnel plot asymmetry for the studies investigating the factors age and marital
status in relation to the likelihood to volunteer. Therefore, these results should be
interpreted with caution, as the reported effect sizes might be an overestimation of
the true effect due to publication bias. However, using Egger’s approach could lead
to false-positive results in the case of dichotomous outcomes10. However, we do
not consider publication bias to be very likely. The majority of the included studies
took age and marital status into account as control variables and their main interest
was often directed towards the association between other factors and volunteering.
Therefore, we do not expect publication bias to be a substantial problem for the
results presented in this review. Funnel plot asymmetry can be caused not only
by publication bias, but low methodological quality could also lead to the inflation
of effects in smaller studies10. The latter could play a role. The majority of the
studies included in this review did not provide information on the characteristics of
respondents compared to participants lost to follow-up and differences between
these groups could have contributed to funnel plot asymmetry.

Recommendations for further research

The studies included in this review were very heterogeneous in terms of the
methodological quality and study population. Results were also heterogeneous and,
unfortunately, heterogeneity could often not be properly explained. The risk of bias
assessment of the included studies has pointed out the presence of reporting flaws
in included studies. Although attrition was in general high in the included studies,
the majority of the studies (79.2%) did not report information regarding potential
differences between participants and drop-outs, therefore insufficient information is
available to assess the likelihood of attrition bias in included studies. Moreover, more
than half of the studies (54.2%) did not report information on the participation rate at

76

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 76 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

baseline. These are important reporting flaws, because selectivity in the study sample
could have a major influence on the findings. Finally, half of the studies (50.0%) did
not report information on how missing data was dealt with. For correct interpretation
of the findings, it is important to know whether and how data has been imputed. In
future research, more attention should be directed towards the quality of reporting
as recommended in the STROBE guidelines51.

The focus of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the
individual determinants of volunteering. Other determinants play a role as well in
predicting volunteering. Contextual factors, for example, are important determinants 2
of volunteering too52. Anheier & Salomon53 (page 43) described that volunteering
is determined by the way how societies are organized, how they allocate social
responsibilities, and how much engagement and participation they expect from
citizens. The heterogeneity between the results of the included studies could also
be attributable to contextual differences between countries or cultures. Therefore, in
future cross-national research on individual determinants of volunteering, it would be
interesting to take into account cultural and country specific aspects. Moreover, our
review showed that most studies are concentrated in the USA and selected European
countries. It would be important for future research to diversify studies in terms of
geographical spread. Our review has provided evidence for the association between
several factors (e.g. socioeconomic status, marital status, parental status, functional
health, previous volunteering, social network size and religion) and participation in
voluntary work. In future research on determinants of participation in voluntary work,
these factors should thus be taken into account as potential confounders in the
analyses. This review has identified several gaps in the literature as well. Firstly, (weak)
evidence was found for the negative association between age and volunteering from
middle-age onwards. Studies including adults below middle-age were substantially
underrepresented in this review. Therefore, more research should be done to examine
the determinants of participation in voluntary work among younger adults and more
specific, on the association between age and volunteering in younger age groups.

Secondly, more research is needed on the association between socioeconomic status

and volunteering. Socioeconomic status seems to be related to the likelihood to
volunteer; weak evidence for the association between education and volunteering
was found and, although the overall result for the association between income and
volunteering was inconclusive, for specific groups of individuals (aged 55 and over

77

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 77 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 CHAPTER 2

and those living in the USA) we did find a positive association. Another related factor
is employment status. We did not find an association between employment status
and volunteering but the pooled estimate was boundary significant and indicates
the presence of a possible negative association between employment status and
the likelihood to volunteer. Studies assessing the association of participation in
voluntary work with employment status, level of income and education were very
heterogeneous with respect to the confounders they took into account. Further
research should investigate the association between these factors and participation in
voluntary work, taking both educational attainment, employment status and income
level into account as not only these factors themselves but also the interplay between
these factors may be important in predicting participation in voluntary work.

Thirdly, this review has shown the importance of two types of life course transitions
in predicting the likelihood to volunteer. For both increases in the degree to which
an individual is functionally limited as well as the recent birth of a child in the
household, a strong negative association with participation in voluntary work was
found. Regarding parenthood, the recent birth of a child is negatively associated
to volunteering whereas the presence of children in the household in general
seems to be positively associated to volunteering, which shows the importance of
disentangling these factors. Despite the evident importance of life course transitions
in predicting the likelihood to volunteer, the majority of studies included in this review
did not take them into account. In future research, the effect of major life course
transition with respect to family life (for example changes in household composition,
partnership status and health of family members), work (for example starting a career
after graduation, transitions into and out of unemployment, changes in working hours
and retirement) and health should be taken into account.

New research in the field of volunteering should aim at filling the gaps mentioned
above, because volunteering is an increasingly important activity for developed
societies facing aging populations. Therefore, it is important to know for policy
makers which characteristics are related to volunteering in order to identify potential
volunteers.

CONCLUSIONS
In the current study, important key factors have been identified. The results of this
study show that socioeconomic status, being married, social network size, church

78

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 78 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

attendance and previous volunteer experiences are positively associated with

volunteering and that age, functional limitations and transitions into parenthood
were found to be inversely related to volunteering. A need exists for studies directed
towards deepening the knowledge on the associations several between the factors
and participation in voluntary work, among which are age, education, income and
employment. Moreover, major life course transitions should be studied in relation to
volunteering.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Sjoukje van der Werf (University of Groningen, University 2
Medical Center Groningen) for her assistance with the search strategy for the
databases. We would also like to thank dr. Koen Bartels (Bangor University), professor
René Bekkers (VU Amsterdam), Angela Curl, Ph.D. (Miami University), dr. Noemi
Mantovan (Bangor University), Rebecca Nesbit, Ph.D. (The University of Georgia),
dr. Maria Pavlova (Friedrich Schiller University of Jena), dr. Marieke Voorpostel
(FORS, Switzerland) and Professor John Wilson (Duke University) for providing us
the additional information on the models or additional data of their studies needed
to calculate odds ratios.

79

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 79 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 CHAPTER 2

REFERENCES
1. Okun MA, Yeung EW, Brown S. Volunteering by Older Adults and Risk of Mortality: A Meta-
Analysis. Psychol Aging. 2013;28(2):564-577. doi:10.1037/a0031519

2. Jenkinson CE, Dickens AP, Jones K, et al. Is volunteering a public health intervention? A systematic
review and meta-analysis of the health and survival of volunteers. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(773).
doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-773

3. Anderson ND, Damianakis T, Kröger E, et al. The Benefits Associated With Volunteering Among
Seniors: A Critical Review and Recommendations for Future Research. Psychol Bull. 2014:1505-
1533. doi:10.1037/a0037610

4. Galenkamp H, Deeg DJH. Increasing social participation of older people: are there different
barriers for those in poor health? Introduction to the special section. Eur J Ageing. 2016;13(2):87-
90. doi:10.1007/s10433-016-0379-y

5. International Labour Office Geneva. Manual on the Measurement of Volunteer Work.; International
Labour Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---
dgreports/---stat/documents/publication/wcms_162119.pdf.

6. Salamon LM, Sokowski SW, Haddock MA, Tice HS. The State of Global Civil Society and
Volunteering: Latest findings from the implementation of the UN Nonprofit Handbook. Work
Pap No49 (Baltimore John Hopkins Cent Civ Soc Stud 2012).

7. Godbout E, Filiatrault J, Plante M. La participation des aînés à des activités de bénévolat : Une
revue systématique. Can J Occup Ther. 2012;79(1):23-32. doi:10.2182/cjot.2012.79.1.4

8. Hallett C, Klug, Lauber C. Volunteering in the care of people with severe mental illness: A
systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12:no pagination.

9. Wilson J. Volunteering. Annu Rev Sociol. 2000;26:215-240.

10. Higgins JP Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.Wiley Online
Library; 2008.

11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Academia and Clinic Annals of Internal Medicine
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.
Annu Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-269. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

12. Wilson J, Musick M. Who Cares ? Toward an Integrated Theory of Volunteer Work. Am Sociol Rev.
1997;62(5):694-713. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657355.

13. Hayden J a, Windt D a Van Der, Cartwright JL, Co P. Research and Reporting Methods Annals of
Internal Medicine Assessing Bias in Studies of Prognostic Factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013;144:427-
437. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009

14. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.

15. Kuiper JS, Zuidersma M, Zuidema SU, et al. Social relationships and cognitive decline: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;(June):dyw089.
doi:10.1093/ije/dyw089

16. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.
BMJ Br Med J. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

80

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 80 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

17. Stuck AE, Rubenstein LZ, Wieland D, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical.
Bmj. 1998;316(7129):469-469. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7129.469

18. Ajrouch KJ, Antonucci TC, Webster NJ. Volunteerism: Social network dynamics and education.
Journals Gerontol - Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2016;71(2):309-319. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu166

19. Bartels KPR, Cozzi G, Mantovan N. “The Big Society,” Public Expenditure, and Volunteering. Public
Adm Rev. 2013;(April). doi:10.1111/puar.12012.uring

20. Johnston JB. Religion and volunteering over the adult life course. J Sci Study Relig. 2013;52(4):733-
752. doi:10.1111/jssr.12065

21. Lim C, MacGregor CA. Religion and Volunteering in Context. Am Sociol Rev. 2012;77(5):747-779.
doi:10.1177/0003122412457875

22. McNamara TK, Gonzales E. Volunteer transitions among older adults: The role of human, social, 2
and cultural capital in later life. Journals Gerontol - Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011;66 B(4):490-501.
doi:10.1093/geronb/gbr055

23. Mike A, Jackson JJ, Oltmanns TF. The conscientious retiree: The relationship between
conscientiousness, retirement, and volunteering. J Res Pers. 2014;52:68-77. doi:10.1016/j.
jrp.2014.07.002

24. Nesbit R. The Influence of Major Life Cycle Events on Volunteering. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q.
2012;41(6):1153-1174. doi:10.1177/0899764011429181

25. Okun M, Infurna FJ, Hutchinson I. Are Volunteer Satisfaction and Enjoyment Related to Cessation
of Volunteering by Older Adults? Journals Gerontol - Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2016;71(3):439-444.
doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu159

26. Parkinson L, Warburton J, Sibbritt D, Byles J. Volunteering and older women:

Psychosocial and health predictors of participation. Aging Ment Health. 2010;14(8):917-927.
doi:10.1080/13607861003801045

27. Pavlova MK, Silbereisen RK. Coping with occupational uncertainty and formal volunteering across
the life span. J Vocat Behav. 2014;85(1):93-105. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.05.005

28. Pavlova MK, Silbereisen RK. Perceived Expectations for Active Aging, Formal Productive
Roles, and Psychological Adjustment Among the Young-Old. Res Aging. 2016;38(1):26-50.
doi:10.1177/0164027515573026

29. Son J, Wilson J. Generativity and Volunteering. Sociol Forum. 2011;26(3):644-667. doi:10.1111/j.1573-
7861.2011.01266.x

30. Bekkers R. Trust and Volunteering: Selection or Causation? Evidence From a 4 Year Panel Study.
Polit Behav. 2012;34(2):225-247. doi:10.1007/s11109-011-9165-x

31. Son J, Wilson J. Volunteer Work and Hedonic, Eudemonic, and Social Well-Being. Sociol Forum.
2012;27(3):658-681. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01340.x

32. Son J, Wilson J. Using Normative Theory to Explain the Effect of Religion and Education on
Volunteering. Sociol Perspect. 2012;55(3):473-499. doi:10.1525/sop.2012.55.3.473

33. Voorpostel M, Coffé H. Transitions in Partnership and Parental Status, Gender, and Political and
Civic Participation. Eur Sociol Rev. 2012;28(1):28-42. doi:10.1093/esr/jcq046

34. Voorpostel M, Coffé H. The Effect of Parental Separation on Young Adults?? Political and Civic
Participation. Soc Indic Res. 2014;124(1):295-316. doi:10.1007/s11205-014-0770-z

81

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 81 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 CHAPTER 2

35. Broese Van Groenou M, Van Tilburg T. Six-year follow-up on volunteering in later life: A cohort
comparison in the Netherlands. Eur Sociol Rev. 2012;28(1):1-11. doi:10.1093/esr/jcq043

36. Choi NG, Chou RJ-A. Time and money volunteering among older adults: the relationship between
past and current volunteering and correlates of change and stability. Ageing Soc. 2010;30(04):559-
581. doi:10.1017/S0144686X0999064X

37. Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. Background characteristics, resources and volunteering among older
adults (aged ≥70 years) in the community: A longitudinal study. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2015;15(8):1087-
1095. doi:10.1111/ggi.12404

38. Curl AL, Stowe JD, Cooney TM, Proulx CM. Giving up the keys: How driving cessation affects
engagement in later life. Gerontologist. 2014;54(3):423-433. doi:10.1093/geront/gnt037

39. Curl AL, Proulx CM, Stowe JD, Cooney TM. Productive and Social Engagement Following Driving
Cessation. Res Aging. 2015;37(2):171-199. doi:10.1177/0164027514527624

40. Einolf CJ, Philbrick D. Generous or greedy marriage? A longitudinal study of volunteering and
charitable giving. J Marriage Fam. 2014;76(3):573-586. doi:10.1111/jomf.12115

41. Hank K, Erlinghagen M. Dynamics of Volunteering in Older Europeans. Gerontologist.

2010;50(2):170-178. doi:10.1093/geront/gnp122

42. Andersson MA, Glanville JL. The Contingent Effects of Mental Well-being and Education on
Volunteering. Soc Ment Health. 2016;6(2):90-105. doi:10.1177/2156869316634173

43. DeAngelis R, Acevedo G, Xu X. Secular Volunteerism among Texan Emerging Adults: Exploring
Pathways of Childhood and Adulthood Religiosity. Religions. 2016;7(6):74. doi:10.3390/rel7060074

44. Erlinghagen M. Volunteering after retirement: Evidence from German panel data. Eur Soc.
2010;12(5):603-625. doi:10.1080/14616691003716902

45. Bulanda JR, Jendrek MP. Grandparenting roles and volunteer activity. Journals Gerontol - Ser B
Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2016;71(1):129-140. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu033

46. Arpino B, Bordone V. Regular provision of grandchild care and participation in social activities.
Rev Econ Househ. 2017;15(1):135-174. doi:10.1007/s11150-016-9322-4

47. Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, et al. The effect of english-language restriction on systematic
review-based meta-analyses: A systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health
Care. 2012;28(2):138-144. doi:10.1017/S0266462312000086

48. Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published
in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2003;7(41).
doi:10.3310/hta7410

49. Pham B, Klassen TP, Lawson ML, Moher D. Language of publication restrictions in systematic
reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or
complementary. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(8):769-776. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.08.021

50. Jüni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in
meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):115-123. doi:10.1093/
ije/31.1.115

51. Vandenbroucke JP, Von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational
Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology. 2007;18(6):805-
835. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577511

82

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 82 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

52. Dury S, Willems J, De Witte N, De Donder L, Buffel T, Verté D. Municipality and

Neighborhood Influences on Volunteering in Later Life. J Appl Gerontol. 2014;35(6):601-626.
doi:10.1177/0733464814533818

53. Anheier HK, Salamon LM. Volunteering in cross-national perspective: initial comparisons. Law
Contemp Probl. 2001;62(4):43. doi:10.2307/1192266

83

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 83 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 CHAPTER 2

Appendices

Appendix 1 Search strategy

Appendix 2 Risk of Bias assessment tool

Appendix 3 Determinants measured in included studies

Appendix 4 Overview of determinants and studies included in meta-analyses

84

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 84 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Appendix 1 Search strings MEDLINE, PsychINFO, SocINDEX, Business Source Premier and EconLit

MEDLINE
(Volunteers”[MeSH:NoExp] OR “Hospital Volunteers”[MeSH]
OR
“volunteering”[tiab] OR “volunteerism”[tiab] OR “voluntary worker”[tiab] OR “voluntary
workers”[tiab] OR “voluntary work”[tiab] OR “voluntary association”[tiab] OR “voluntary
associations”[tiab] OR “voluntary activities”[tiab] OR “lay worker”[tiab] OR “lay workers”[tiab] OR
“unpaid work”[tiab])
AND
2
(“Age Factors”[MeSH] OR “Aspirations(psychology)”[MeSH] OR “Attitude”[MeSH:NoExp]
OR “Behavior”[MeSH:NoExp] OR “Causality”[MeSH:NoExp] OR “Comorbidity”[MeSH] OR
“Goals”[MeSH] OR “Helping Behavior”[MeSH] OR “Intention”[MeSH] OR “Motivation”[MeSH:NoExp]
OR “Psychology”[MeSH] OR “Reward”[MeSH] OR “Self Efficacy”[MeSH] OR “Sex Factors”[MeSH]
OR “Sociological Factors”[MeSH]
OR
“barrier”[tiab] OR “barriers”[tiab] OR “choice”[tiab] OR “choices”[tiab]OR “characteristic”[tiab]
OR “characteristics”[tiab] OR “determinant”[tiab] OR “determinants”[tiab] OR “factor”[tiab] OR
“factors”[tiab] OR “goal”[tiab] OR “goals”[tiab] OR “incentive”[tiab] OR “incentives”[tiab] OR
“likely”[tiab] OR “likelihood”[tiab] OR “motivation”[tiab] OR “motivations”[tiab] OR “motive”[tiab]
OR “motives”[tiab] OR “predict”[tiab] OR “predicts”[tiab] OR “prediction”[tiab] OR “predictor”[tiab]
OR “predictors”[tiab] OR “reason”[tiab] OR “reasons”[tiab] OR “relation”[tiab] OR “relations”[tiab]
OR “relationship”[tiab] OR “why”[tiab] OR “willingness”[tiab])
PsychINFO
(DE “Volunteers”
OR
TI (volunteering OR volunteerism OR “voluntary work*”OR “volunteer work*” OR “voluntary
association*” OR “unpaid work*”)
OR
AB (volunteering OR volunteerism OR “voluntary work*”OR “volunteer work*” OR “voluntary
association*” OR “lay work*” OR “unpaid work*”))
AND
(DE “Academic Achievement Motivation” OR DE “Achievement Motivation” OR DE “Altruism”
OR DE “Aspirations” OR DE “Attitudes” OR DE “Attribution” OR DE “Causal Analysis” OR DE
“Commitment” OR DE “Employee Motivation” OR DE “Extrinsic Motivation” OR DE “Goals”
OR DE “Human Capital” OR DE “Incentives” OR DE “Intention” OR DE “Intrinsic Motivation”
OR DE “Motivation” OR DE “Needs” OR DE “Occupational Aspirations” OR DE “Organizational

85

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 85 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 CHAPTER 2

Commitment” OR DE “Planned Behavior” OR DE “Prediction” OR DE “Prosocial Behavior” OR

DE “Reasoned Action” OR DE “Rewards” OR DE “Self Expansion” OR DE “Social Capital” OR DE
“Social Behavior” OR DE “Social Perception”
OR
TI (barrier OR barriers OR choice OR choices OR characteristic OR characteristics OR determinant
OR determinants OR factor OR factors OR goal OR goals OR incentive OR incentives OR likely
OR likelihood OR motivation OR motivations OR motive OR motives OR predict OR prediction
OR predictor OR predictors OR reason OR reasons OR relation OR relations OR relationship OR
relationships OR why OR willingness)
OR
AB (barrier OR barriers OR choice OR choices OR characteristic OR characteristics OR
determinant OR determinants OR factor OR factors OR goal OR goals OR incentive OR incentives
OR likely OR likelihood OR motivation OR motivations OR motive OR motives OR predict OR
prediction OR predictor OR predictors OR reason OR reasons OR relation OR relations OR
relationship OR relationships OR why OR willingness))
SocINDEX
(DE “LAY Ministry” OR DE “VOLUNTEERS” OR DE “STUDENT volunteers in social services” OR
DE “VOLUNTEER workers in social services” OR DE “VOLUNTEER service” OR DE “WOMEN
volunteers in social services” OR DE “YOUNG volunteers in social services” OR DE “OLDER
volunteers in social services”
OR
TI (volunteering OR volunteerism OR “voluntary work*”OR “volunteer work*” OR “voluntary
association*” OR “unpaid work*”)
OR
AB (volunteering OR volunteerism OR “voluntary work*”OR “volunteer work*” OR “voluntary
association*” OR “lay work*” OR “unpaid work*))
AND
(DE “ASSOCIATIONS, institutions, etc.” OR DE “ATTITUDE (psychology)” OR DE “BEHAVIORISM
(psychology)” OR DE “BEHAVIOR” OR DE “HUMAN behavior” OR DE “PROSOCIAL behavior”
OR DE “HELPING behavior” OR DE “PLANNED behavior theory” OR DE “MOTIVATION
(psychology)” OR DE “EMPLOYEE motivation” OR DE “GOAL (psychology)” OR DE “REWARD
(psychology)” OR DE “SELF-actualization (psychology)” OR DE “SELF-determination theory”
OR DE “SOCIOEMOTIONAL selectivity theory” OR DE “COMMITMENT” OR DE “PSYCHOLOGY”
OR DE “INFLUENCE (Psychology)” OR DE “HUMAN capital” OR DE “SOCIAL capital (Sociology)”
OR DE “CULTURAL capital”
OR

86

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 86 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

TI (barrier OR barriers OR choice OR choices OR characteristic OR characteristics OR determinant

OR determinants OR factor OR factors OR goal OR goals OR incentive OR incentives OR likely
OR likelihood OR motivation OR motivations OR motive OR motives OR predict OR prediction
OR predictor OR predictors OR reason OR reasons OR relation OR relations OR relationship OR
relationships OR why OR willingness)
OR
AB (barrier OR barriers OR choice OR choices OR characteristic OR characteristics OR
determinant OR determinants OR factor OR factors OR goal OR goals OR incentive OR incentives
OR likely OR likelihood OR motivation OR motivations OR motive OR motives OR predict OR
prediction OR predictor OR predictors OR reason OR reasons OR relation OR relations OR 2
relationship OR relationships OR why OR willingness)
Business Source Premier
DE “STUDENT volunteers in social services” OR DE “VOLUNTEERS” OR DE “VOLUNTEERS
-- psychology” OR DE “VOLUNTEER recruitment” OR DE “VOLUNTEER service” OR DE
“VOLUNTEER workers in income tax return preparation” OR DE “VOLUNTEER workers in social
services” OR DE “WOMEN volunteers in social services” OR DE “YOUNG volunteers in social
services”
OR
TI (volunteering OR volunteerism OR “voluntary work*”OR “volunteer work*” OR “voluntary
association*” OR “unpaid work*”)
OR
AB (volunteering OR volunteerism OR “voluntary work*”OR “volunteer work*” OR “voluntary
association*” OR “lay work*” OR “unpaid work*”)
AND
DE “ATTITUDE (psychology)” OR DE “BEHAVIOR” OR DE “BEHAVIORAL research” OR DE
“CONSUMER behavior” OR DE “DECISION making” OR DE “DISCRIMINATION in employment”
OR DE “GENDER role in the work environment” OR DE “HUMAN behavior” OR DE “INCENTIVES in
industry” OR DE “PROSOCIAL behavior” OR DE “HELPING behavior” OR DE “PLANNED behavior
theory” OR DE “MOTIVATION (psychology)” OR DE “EMPLOYEE motivation” OR DE “REWARD
(psychology)” OR DE “SELF-actualization (psychology)” OR DE “SELF-determination theory” OR
DE “COMMITMENT” OR DE “HUMAN capital” OR DE “SOCIAL capital” OR DE “CULTURAL capital”
OR
TI (barrier OR barriers OR choice OR choices OR characteristic OR characteristics OR determinant
OR determinants OR factor OR factors OR goal OR goals OR incentive OR incentives OR likely
OR likelihood OR motivation OR motivations OR motive OR motives OR predict OR prediction

87

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 87 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 CHAPTER 2

OR predictor OR predictors OR reason OR reasons OR relation OR relations OR relationship OR

relationships OR why OR willingness)
OR
AB (barrier OR barriers OR choice OR choices OR characteristic OR characteristics OR
determinant OR determinants OR factor OR factors OR goal OR goals OR incentive OR incentives
OR likely OR likelihood OR motivation OR motivations OR motive OR motives OR predict OR
prediction OR predictor OR predictors OR reason OR reasons OR relation OR relations OR
relationship OR relationships OR why OR willingness)
EconLit
TI (volunteer OR volunteers OR volunteering OR volunteerism OR “voluntary work*”OR “volunteer
work*” OR “voluntary association*”)
OR
AB (volunteer OR volunteers OR volunteering OR volunteerism OR “voluntary work*”OR
“volunteer work*” OR “voluntary association*”)
AND
TI (attitude OR attitudes OR barrier OR barriers OR behavior OR choice OR choices OR
characteristic OR characteristics OR commitment OR “cultural capital” OR determinant OR
determinants OR factor OR factors OR goal OR goals OR “human capital” OR incentive OR
incentives OR likely OR likelihood OR motivation OR motivations OR motive OR motives OR
predict OR prediction OR predictor OR predictors OR reason OR reasons OR relation OR
relations OR rewards OR relationship OR relationships OR “social capital” OR why OR willingness)
OR
AB (attitude OR attitudes OR barrier OR barriers OR behavior OR choice OR choices OR
characteristic OR characteristics OR commitment OR “cultural capital” OR determinant OR
determinants OR factor OR factors OR goal OR goals OR “human capital” OR incentive OR
incentives OR likely OR likelihood OR motivation OR motivations OR motive OR motives OR
predict OR prediction OR predictor OR predictors OR reason OR reasons OR relation OR
relations OR rewards OR relationship OR relationships OR “social capital” OR why OR willingness)

88

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 88 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Appendix 2 Risk of Bias assessment tool (based on QUIPS, Hayden et al.13)

Domain Items

1. Study participation 1a. Method used to identify population: recruitment of participants for
the study was performed in a consecutive way

1b. Adequate study participation: at least 70% of recruited individuals

agreed to participate

2. Study attrition 2a. Adequate follow-up rate: at least 80% of the baseline study
participants participated at follow-up

2b. There are no important differences between participants who

completed the study and those who did not

3. Determinant 3a. Adequate proportion of complete data: at least 70% of the study
measurement sample has complete data on the determinant(s) 2
3b. The method and setting of determinant measurement is the same
for all study participants

3c. Appropriate methods of imputation are used for missing determinant

data

4. Outcome measurement 4a. Outcome measure truly captures participation in voluntary work
and does not allow for participation in informal caregiving or other
productive activities not equal to volunteering, unless subgroups are
made for the distinct forms of participation

4b. The method and setting of outcome measurement is the same for all
study participants

5. Study confounding 5a. The following potentially important confounders are measured:
a1. age
a2. socioeconomic status (e.g. education, income)
a3. gender
a4. participation in voluntary work at baseline

5b. The method and setting of measurement of the confounders is the

same for all study participants

5c. Appropriate methods of imputation are used for missing data

regarding the confounders

5d. The following potentially important confounders are accounted for

in the study design (e.g., matching for key variables, stratification, or
initial assembly of comparable groups) or in the analysis (i.e., appropriate
adjustment)
d1. age
d2. socioeconomic status (e.g. education, income)
d3. gender
d4. participation in voluntary work at baseline

6. Statistical analysis and 6a. The selected statistical model is adequate for the design of the
reporting study design

6b. There is no over fitting (at least 10 participants in the smallest group
per determinant and outcome variable)

6c. There is no selective reporting of results

89

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 89 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 CHAPTER 2

Appendix 3 Determinants measured in included studies

Author Determinants66

Ajrouch et al. 18
Social network (size, proportion of family, age, proximity, frequency),
education, age, gender, race, health limitation and depression

Bartels et al. 19 Ratio government expenditure / GDP, interest in politics, children,

education, marital status, income, liking the neighbourhood

Bekkers 30 Trust

Broese van Groenou & Van Age, gender, cohort, education, employment status, health status, marital
Tilburg 35 status, size of personal network and church attendance

Choi & Chou 36 Education, income, health, work status, religion, generative qualities,
number of meetings attended, age, marital status, ethnicity and gender

Cramm & Nieboer 37 Age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, education, social capital, social
functioning, cognitive functioning and physical functioning , volunteering
at baseline

Curl et al. 38 Driving status, waves since driving cessation, gender, age, ethnicity,
education, marital status, household income, depressive symptoms,
chronic conditions, self-rated health, IADL limitations and cognitive ability

Curl et al. 39 For both the individual and the spouse: driving status, waves since driving
cessation, age, ethnicity, education, couple income, cognitive ability,
chronic conditions, IADL limitations and self-rated health

Einolf & Philbrick 40 Marriage (covariates taken into account but no effect size provided are:
volunteering at baseline, ethnicity, education, age, health, hours worked,
religious attendance, housework hours and children

Hank & Erlinghagen 41 Gender, age, education, partnership status, employment status, self-rated
health, country

Johnston 20 Religious importance, religious attendance, family income, functional

health, employment status, child currently at home, marital status

Lim & Mac Gregor 21 Age, gender, ethnicity, income, education, marriage, children, social
involvement index, voluntary group involvement, religious tradition,
religious index, region, volunteering at baseline, number of close friends,
ethnicity of friends, religiosity of friends

McNamara & Gonzales 22 Age, ethnicity, gender, volunteering at baseline, assets, education, income,
health, marital status, volunteer status of spouse, like to spend time with
spouse, spousal caregiving, parental caregiving, children, employment
status, provision of informal help in community, religious attendance

Mike et al. 23 Age, gender, education, personality traits: conscientiousness, extraversion,

agreeableness, neuroticism and openness, current work status

Nesbit 24 Volunteering at baseline, gender, age, ethnicity, education, birth of child,

divorce, death in family

Okun et al. 25 Volunteer satisfaction and enjoyment, age, gender, race, hours worked p/
wk, education, functional limitations, social interaction, attending clubs /
organizations and church attendance

Parkinson 26 Area of residence, country of birth, English proficiency, education, health

care insurance, living arrangements, transport, SF36, DSSI, number of
visits to healthcare professionals

66 The determinants listed here are only those determinants for which the association with the outcome is measured
longitudinally and are therefore eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis

90

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 90 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

Appendix 3 Continued
Author Determinants

Pavlova & Silbereisen 27 Coping strategies for occupational uncertainty, region, community size,
gender, education, income, employment status, partnership status and
general health

Pavlova & Silbereisen 28 Perceived activation demands, volunteering at baseline, age and self-
rated health

Son & Wilson 29 Generativity,religious identification, church attendance, spirituality,

religious coping, parental religion, parental sociability, education, age,
gender, ethnicity, marital status and income

Son & Wilson 31 Altruistic obligation, civic obligation, religious identification, spirituality,
religious coping, public religiosity, parental religion, education, age,
gender, ethnicity, marital status, income, employment, physical health,
religious tradition, contact frequency with friends 2
Son & Wilson 32 Hedonic well-being, eudemonic well-being, social well-being, age,
gender, ethnicity, marital status, education, income, employment, church
attendance, physical health

Voorpostel & Coffé 33 Transitions in partnership, transitions in parental status, age, (change in)
education, (change in) employment status, volunteering at baseline

Voorpostel & Coffé 34 Parental separation, parental levels of voting and volunteering, parental
occupation and education, young adults living situation, age, gender,
schooling, education, occupation and church visits

91

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 91 15-8-2020 17:27:14

 Appendix 4 Overview of determinants and studies included in meta-analyses

92
Determinant Articles that reported an association between the determinant and Studies selected for inclusion in meta-analysis

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 92
the outcome
CHAPTER 2

Demographic Variables

Age Ajrouch et al. (16); Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Choi & Ajrouch et al. (16); Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Cramm
Chou (19); Cramm & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Curl et al. (22); Hank & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Hank & Erlinghagen (24); Lim &
& Erlinghagen (24); Lim & MacGregor (26); McNamara & Gonzales (27); MacGregor (26); Nesbit (29); Okun et al. (30); Pavlova & Silbereisen
Mike et al. (28); Nesbit (29); Okun et al. (30); Pavlova & Silbereisen (33); (33); Son & Wilson (36); Voorpostel & Coffé (37)
Son & Wilson (34); Son & Wilson (35); Son & Wilson (36); Voorpostel &
Coffé (37); Voorpostel & Coffé (38)

Gender Ajrouch et al. (16); Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Choi & Chou Ajrouch et al. (16); Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Cramm
(19); Cramm & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Hank & Erlinghagen (24); Lim & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Hank & Erlinghagen (24); Lim &
& MacGregor (26); McNamara & Gonzales (27); Mike et al. (28); Nesbit MacGregor (26); Nesbit (29); Okun et al. (30); Pavlova & Silbereisen
(29); Okun et al. (30); Pavlova & Silbereisen (32); Son & Wilson (34); Son (32); Son & Wilson (36); Voorpostel & Coffé (38)
& Wilson (35); Son & Wilson (36); Voorpostel & Coffé (38)

Ethnicity Ajrouch et al. (16); Choi & Chou (19); Cramm & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. Ajrouch et al. (16); Cramm & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Lim &
(21); Curl et al. (22); Lim & MacGregor (26); McNamara & Gonzales (27); MacGregor (26); Nesbit (29); Okun et al. (30); Parkinson (31); Son
Nesbit (29); Okun et al. (30); Parkinson (31); Son & Wilson (34); Son & & Wilson (36)
Wilson (35); Son & Wilson (36)

Marital Status Bartels et al. (17); Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Choi & Chou Bartels et al. (17)67; Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Cramm
(19); Cramm & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Einolf & Philbrick (23); Hank & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Hank & Erlinghagen (24); Johnston
& Erlinghagen (24); Johnston (25); Lim & MacGregor (26); McNamara (25); Lim & MacGregor (26); Pavlova & Silbereisen (32); Son & Wilson
& Gonzales (27); Pavlova & Silbereisen (32); Son & Wilson (34); Son & (36); Voorpostel & Coffé (37)
Wilson (35); Son & Wilson (36); Voorpostel & Coffé (37)

Parental Status Bartels et al. (17); Johnston (25); Lim & MacGregor (26); McNamara & Bartels et al. (17)29; Johnston (25); Lim & MacGregor (26); McNamara
Gonzales (27); Nesbit (29); Voorpostel & Coffé (37) & Gonzales (27); Nesbit (29); Voorpostel & Coffé (37)

67 Bartels et al. (2013) present several models. The results from the Panel Data Logit with Fixed Effects (XtLogit FE) model were used in our analyses.

15-8-2020 17:27:14
 Appendix 4 Continued

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 93
Determinant Articles that reported an association between the determinant and Studies selected for inclusion in meta-analysis
the outcome

Socioeconomic Status

Educational Attainment Ajrouch et al. (16); Bartels et al. (2013); Broese van Groenou en Van Ajrouch et al. (16); Bartels et al. (2013)29; Broese van Groenou en
Tilburg (11); Choi & Chou (19); Cramm & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Curl Van Tilburg (11); Cramm & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Hank &
et al. (22); Hank & Erlinghagen (24); Lim & MacGregor (26); McNamara Erlinghagen (24); Lim & MacGregor (26); Nesbit (29); Okun et al.
& Gonzales (27); Mike et al. (28); Nesbit (29); Okun et al. (30); Parkinson (30); Parkinson (2010); Pavlova & Silbereisen (32); Son & Wilson (36);
(2010); Pavlova & Silbereisen (32); Son & Wilson (34); Son & Wilson (35); Voorpostel & Coffé (38)
Son & Wilson (36); Voorpostel & Coffé (37); Voorpostel & Coffé (38)

Income Bartels et al. (2013); Choi & Chou (19); Curl et al. (21); Curl et al. (22); Bartels et al. (2013)29; Curl et al. (21); Johnston (25); Lim & MacGregor
Johnston (25); Lim & MacGregor (26); McNamara & Gonzales (27); (26); Pavlova & Silbereisen (32); Son & Wilson (36)
Pavlova & Silbereisen (32); Son & Wilson (34); Son & Wilson (35); Son
& Wilson (36)

Participation in
productive activities

Volunteering at Baseline Cramm & Nieboer (20); Lim & MacGregor (26); McNamara & Gonzales Cramm & Nieboer (20); Lim & MacGregor (26); McNamara &
(27); Nesbit (29); Pavlova & Silbereisen (33); Son & Wilson (36); Gonzales (27); Nesbit (29); Pavlova & Silbereisen (33); Son & Wilson
Voorpostel & Coffé (37) (36); Voorpostel & Coffé (37)

Employment Status Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Choi & Chou (19); Hank & Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Hank & Erlinghagen (24);
Erlinghagen (24); Johnston (25); McNamara & Gonzales (27); Okun et Johnston (25); McNamara & Gonzales (27); Pavlova & Silbereisen
al. (30); Pavlova & Silbereisen (32); Son & Wilson (35); Son & Wilson (36) (32); Son & Wilson (36)

Health status

Overall health Status Choi & Chou (19); Curl et al. (21); Curl et al. (22); McNamara & Gonzales Curl et al. (21); Hank & Erlinghagen (24); Pavlova & Silbereisen (32);
(27); Hank & Erlinghagen (24); Pavlova & Silbereisen (32); Pavlova & Son & Wilson (36)
Silbereisen (33); Son & Wilson (36)

Limitations in ADL Ajrouch et al. (16); Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Curl et al. Ajrouch et al. (16); Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Curl et
(21); Curl et al. (22); Johnston (25); Okun et al. (30) al. (21); Johnston (25)

93
DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

15-8-2020 17:27:14
 94
Appendix 4 Continued

Determinant Articles that reported an association between the determinant and Studies selected for inclusion in meta-analysis
the outcome

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 94
CHAPTER 2

Physical Health Cramm & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Curl et al. (22); Parkinson (31) Cramm & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Parkinson (31)

Mental Health Ajrouch et al. (16); Curl et al. (21); Parkinson (31) Ajrouch et al. (16); Curl et al. (21); Parkinson (31)

Cognitive Health Cramm & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21); Curl et al. (22) Cramm & Nieboer (20); Curl et al. (21)

Social relationships

Social Network Size Ajrouch et al. (16); Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Lim & Ajrouch et al. (16); Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Lim &
MacGregor (26) MacGregor (26)

Frequency of Contacts Ajrouch et al. (16); Lim & MacGregor (26); Okun et al. (30); Parkinson Ajrouch et al. (16); Lim & MacGregor (26); Okun et al. (30); Parkinson
(31); Son & Wilson (36) (31); Son & Wilson (36)

Religion

Church Attendance Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Johnston (25); McNamara & Broese van Groenou en Van Tilburg (11); Johnston (25); McNamara
Gonzales (27); Okun et al. (30); Son & Wilson (36); Voorpostel & Coffé & Gonzales (27); Son & Wilson (36); Voorpostel & Coffé (38)
(38)

Religious Identification Choi & Chou (19); Johnston (25); Lim & MacGregor (26); Son & Wilson Choi & Chou (19); Johnston (25); Lim & MacGregor (26); Son & Wilson
(36) (36)

Other

Driving Status Curl et al. (21); Parkinson (31) Curl et al. (21); Parkinson (31)

Attending Meetings Choi & Chou (19); Okun et al. (30) Choi & Chou (19); Okun et al. (30)

15-8-2020 17:27:15
 DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY WORK

95

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 95 15-8-2020 17:27:15

135747_Jacobien_Niebuur_BNW-def.indd 96 15-8-2020 17:27:15