Anne Goehner1,2, Cornelia Kricheldorff3, Eva Maria Bitzer4. 1. Center for Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology Freiburg, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Lehener Str. 88, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. anne.goehner@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 2. University of Education Freiburg, Public Health & Health Education, Kunzenweg 21, 79117, Freiburg, Germany. anne.goehner@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 3. Catholic University of Applied Sciences Freiburg, Karlstr. 63, 79104, Freiburg, Germany. 4. University of Education Freiburg, Public Health & Health Education, Kunzenweg 21, 79117, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New approaches are needed to address the challenges of demographic change, staff shortages, and societal change in the care of the elderly. While volunteering has barely been established as a pillar of the welfare state in several countries, legislators and nonprofit or community-based organizations in some countries favor the increased integration of volunteers, as they can rely on many dedicated people. When caring for the multimorbid elderly, the transition from hospital to domesticity involves certain risks. Currently, no systematic knowledge exists on whether and how elderly benefit from volunteer support after a hospital stay. Objectives of this systematic review were to (1) identify evaluated approaches with trained volunteers supporting chronically ill, multimorbid elderly one-on-one at the interface between hospital and domesticity; (2) investigate the patient-related effectiveness of the approaches; (3) present the characteristics of the supporting volunteers; and (4) present the underlying teaching and training concepts for the volunteers. METHODS: A systematic search of the following online databases was conducted in April 2017: the Cochrane Library, Medline (PubMed), CINAHL, and PsycINFO (Ebscohost). We included (cluster/quasi-) randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and single-group pre-post design. An institutional search was conducted on eight national institutions from research and practice in Germany. Screening was conducted by one researcher, risk of bias was assessed. Study authors were contacted for study and training details. RESULTS: We identified a total of twelve studies, eight of which evaluated treatment following hospital stay: psychosocial-coordinative support (n = 2), physical-cognitive activation (n = 4), and assistance with medication intake (n = 2). We saw short-term effects with small and medium effect sizes. Most volunteers were women aged between 45 and 61 years. Their training lasted 12-26 h and took place prior to first patient contact. During the intervention, volunteers could rely on permanent supporting structures. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies exist that have evaluated one-on-one-volunteer support following hospitalization, and the effects are inconsistent. As such, further, well-designed studies are needed. The suitability and transferability of the interventions in country-specific settings should be examined in feasibility studies. Furthermore, an international discussion on the appropriate theoretical backgrounds of volunteer training is needed.
BACKGROUND: New approaches are needed to address the challenges of demographic change, staff shortages, and societal change in the care of the elderly. While volunteering has barely been established as a pillar of the welfare state in several countries, legislators and nonprofit or community-based organizations in some countries favor the increased integration of volunteers, as they can rely on many dedicated people. When caring for the multimorbid elderly, the transition from hospital to domesticity involves certain risks. Currently, no systematic knowledge exists on whether and how elderly benefit from volunteer support after a hospital stay. Objectives of this systematic review were to (1) identify evaluated approaches with trained volunteers supporting chronically ill, multimorbid elderly one-on-one at the interface between hospital and domesticity; (2) investigate the patient-related effectiveness of the approaches; (3) present the characteristics of the supporting volunteers; and (4) present the underlying teaching and training concepts for the volunteers. METHODS: A systematic search of the following online databases was conducted in April 2017: the Cochrane Library, Medline (PubMed), CINAHL, and PsycINFO (Ebscohost). We included (cluster/quasi-) randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and single-group pre-post design. An institutional search was conducted on eight national institutions from research and practice in Germany. Screening was conducted by one researcher, risk of bias was assessed. Study authors were contacted for study and training details. RESULTS: We identified a total of twelve studies, eight of which evaluated treatment following hospital stay: psychosocial-coordinative support (n = 2), physical-cognitive activation (n = 4), and assistance with medication intake (n = 2). We saw short-term effects with small and medium effect sizes. Most volunteers were women aged between 45 and 61 years. Their training lasted 12-26 h and took place prior to first patient contact. During the intervention, volunteers could rely on permanent supporting structures. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies exist that have evaluated one-on-one-volunteer support following hospitalization, and the effects are inconsistent. As such, further, well-designed studies are needed. The suitability and transferability of the interventions in country-specific settings should be examined in feasibility studies. Furthermore, an international discussion on the appropriate theoretical backgrounds of volunteer training is needed.
Authors: Sonia Sandhaus; Margarete L Zalon; Donna Valenti; Edward Dzielak; Raymond A Smego; Ulyana Arzamasova Journal: Health Care Manag (Frederick) Date: 2010 Apr-Jun
Authors: Rebecca A Krukowski; Rebecca A Pope; Sharhonda Love; Shelly Lensing; Holly C Felix; T Elaine Prewitt; Delia West Journal: Prev Med Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Thomas E Dorner; Christian Lackinger; Sandra Haider; Eva Luger; Ali Kapan; Maria Luger; Karin E Schindler Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-12-27 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rosemary Saunders; Kien Chan; Renée M Graham; Elena Adams; Caroline E Bulsara; Karla Seaman; Marcella Cranny-Connolly Journal: J Multidiscip Healthc Date: 2021-12-24
Authors: Stephen Eu Ruen Lim; Samantha Meredith; Samantha Agnew; Esther Clift; Kinda Ibrahim; Helen Roberts Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.692