research studies on volunteer

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

Program for Healthy Volunteers

What is the clinical research volunteer program (crvp).

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

<< Back to Top >>

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

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

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

Will I be compensated?

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

What kinds of clinical studies are available?

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

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

Are there any risks?

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

How are studies approved for volunteer participation?

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

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

How can I volunteer?

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

How do I enroll myself or my child?

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

How can I find studies currently recruiting volunteers?

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

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

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

NOTE: PDF documents require the free Adobe Reader .

This page last updated on 02/13/2024

You are now leaving the NIH Clinical Center website.

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

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

7856 Accesses

5 Citations

238 Altmetric

31 Mentions

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Qualitative Research: Ethical Considerations

Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges

Julius Sim & Jackie Waterfield

A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research

Taulant Muka, Marija Glisic, … Oscar H. Franco

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

The aims of this umbrella review were to;

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusion Criteria

Intervention: volunteering.

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

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

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

Types of Studies

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

Search Strategy

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

Study Selection

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

Quality Appraisal

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

Data extraction and Synthesis

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

Data Analysis

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

Search Outcomes

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

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

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

Methodological Quality of Included Primary Studies

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

Methodological Quality of Included Reviews

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

Characteristics of Included Reviews

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

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

Publication Bias

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

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

General Effects on Health and Well-being

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

Psychological Effects on Health and Well-being

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

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

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

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

Physical Effects on Health and Well-being

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

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

Social Effects on Health and Well-being

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

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

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

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

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

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

Findings from Meta-Analyses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths and Limitations

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Beth Nichol & Catherine Haighton

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

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

Angela Rodrigues

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beth Nichol .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

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

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 226 KB)

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Accepted : 17 April 2023

Published : 04 May 2023

Issue Date : February 2024

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

• Clinical Trials

Volunteering

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

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

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

Participating is a choice

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

Getting involved

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

Making an informed decision

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

Protecting rights and safety

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

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

Participation costs

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

Clinical studies questions

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

Cancer-related clinical studies questions

• Phone: 855-776-0015 (toll-free)

International patient clinical studies questions

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

Clinical Studies in Depth

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

Diversity in Clinical Trials

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

• Institutional Review Board

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

More about research at Mayo Clinic

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

Mayo Clinic Footer

• Request Appointment
• About Mayo Clinic
• About This Site

Legal Conditions and Terms

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

Advertising

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

• Advertising and sponsorship policy
• Advertising and sponsorship opportunities

Reprint Permissions

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

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

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

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

Clinical Studies: Information for the Public and Potential Volunteers

Find studies seeking volunteers.

• Studies on the NIH Campus in Bethesda, Maryland (Intramural)
• Studies Across the Country (Extramural)

On this page:

What is a clinical study?

Who can participate in a clinical study, how can i find studies seeking volunteers.

A clinical study is a research study (sometimes called a trial or protocol) in which people agree to participate after providing informed consent. These are carefully designed studies that aim to uncover better ways to prevent, diagnose, or treat conditions, or to better understand specific conditions or processes.

One of the most common types of clinical studies is a clinical trial, in which researchers work with volunteers to find out how a substance or action, also called an intervention, affects a person. Interventions are, for example, drugs, therapies or procedures, medical devices, or lifestyle changes (behaviors), such as changes in diet or level of physical activity. Clinical trials are often designed to see if the intervention prevents, finds, or improves a disease or condition. 

Clinical trials may compare experimental interventions with existing products or processes, or with a product or process that appears to be identical to the intervention being studied but which has no known effect, such as a dummy pill (called a placebo). Clinical trials can also compare two or more existing approaches to determine which is safer or more effective.

In randomized clinical trial, neither the volunteer nor the researcher know which intervention the volunteer is receiving. This ensures that the results are not impacted by any assumptions or preconceived notions of how the intervention will affect the volunteer.

Before being tested on people during in clinical trials, the drug, device, or other approach being studied has been shown to be safe and helpful in a laboratory (such as in studies of cells or tissues in test tubes) and, sometimes, in animals.

Another type of clinical study is an observational study. Observational studies are key to learning about the incidence, prevalence, and prognosis of a disease or condition. Population-based research studies—which are a type of observational study—are critical for estimating how many people are affected by specific conditions and the burden those conditions have on society.

Like clinical trials, researchers collect information about participants, including how treatments or other factors affect the volunteers; however, in observational studies, researchers do not play a role in assigning  the interventions. Observational studies therefore enable researchers to gain key insights into factors (sometimes called determinants) that may be linked to another condition or health outcome. In addition to medicines and other treatments, these factors may include, for example, behaviors, age, gender, and health conditions.  

Clinical studies enroll people— volunteers —who are alike in certain ways, depending on the study's purpose. The study's protocol tells who can join the study and spells out the characteristics that volunteers should have. These are called eligibility criteria . They may include age, gender, general health, and other risk factors. Many studies include healthy volunteers—people with no known significant health problems—as well as people with certain conditions or risk factors for a disease or illness.

Eligibility criteria are a key part of medical research. They help produce results we can trust. After those results are known, the information can help researchers find out who will be helped by the approach being studied—if it's shown to work. For example, a new drug might not work for people with one type of risk factor, or it may work better for men than for women. Eligibility criteria also help protect study participants. They help make sure that if a volunteer is likely to be harmed by something in the study, he or she is not exposed to that risk.

Researchers study only individuals who volunteer to participate in their study. A person who is interested in volunteering is informed about the risks and benefits of taking part in the study, including details about the study approach and any tests that may be performed. When a person decides to participate, he or she signs a consent form. This process is called informed consent, and it lasts as long as the person is in the study. In other words, a volunteer can change his or her mind and leave a study at any time.

Most research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—which includes the NIDCD—is conducted at universities, medical schools, and other institutions nationwide and around the world. This includes research conducted in laboratories as well as clinical research. Similarly, clinical research studies are conducted in sites throughout the United States.

ClinicalTrials.gov , a website maintained by the NIH, provides current information about clinical studies for potential volunteers, family members, health providers, and others. You can search the entire database or go directly to a list of NIDCD-supported clinical studies .

ResearchMatch.org  is another tool to connect volunteers with appropriate studies. This free, confidential registry was developed in part through NIH funding. After you register on the site, you will receive emails about any studies that appear to be relevant, with instructions about how you can get more information about participating.

NIDCD scientists who work at the NIH in Bethesda, Maryland, also conduct clinical research in communication disorders, primarily in hearing and balance. These scientists and their staff are part of the NIDCD Division of Intramural Research . Most of their clinical studies are conducted at the NIH Clinical Center , the world’s largest complex devoted to clinical research. Here are the current NIDCD clinical studies at the NIH .

• Directions & Parking
• Aging Research
• Medical Image Analysis
• Neurodevelopment
• Neuroinformatics
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Neuroscience Research
• Publications
• Volunteer For A Study
• Principal Investigators
• Senior Administration
• Collaborators
• Staff Directory
• How To Work With Us
• Imaging Services & Capabilities
• Imaging Equipment
• Information Technology
• Data Community
• Scientific Lectures
• Courses & Events
• Community Resources
• Documentaries
• MRN in the News

Volunteer for a Study //

Participant recruitment registry.

​Research is our best hope for understanding and treating mental illnesses. Thanks to help from volunteers, researchers are learning more and more about the causes of mental and behavioral disorders, and are finding new ways to treat and prevent illnesses. We are always recruiting individuals of all ages and races to participate in our studies.  

The Mind Research Network would like to invite you to join our Participant Recruitment Registry (PRR) , a program that helps us identify individuals who are eligible for and interested in participating in scientific research.  Participation in the PRR is for research purposes only and is entirely voluntary. If you choose to register, the information you provide will be kept confidential.  If you would like to be contacted about future research studies and are interested in participating in the registry, please click HERE  to log in or create a new account.

You can also participate by contacting the study team directly. Studies recruiting at the Mind Research Network and Lovelace Scientific Resources are listed below.  We thank you in advance for your contribution to our research mission!

• Area of Research
• Principal Investigator
• Project Title

The Impact of Diffuse Mild Brain Injury on Clinical Outcomes in Children

Andy Mayer, PhD, Traumatic Brain Injury Research

Purpose of Study: The aim of this research is to seek neuroimaging evidence of subtle physical or biochemical injury in subjects with TBI relative to healthy control subjects and, if detected, examine whether these injuries resolve.

Protocol Summary: Participants will undergo neuropsychological testing, neurosensory testing, magnetic resonance imaging (~4-5 hours). Repeat testing will occur 4 months and 12 months post injury (~3 hours). Participants in this study will be paid $20 per hour of participation.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Males and females between the ages of 8-18 with no MRI contraindications (presence of a potentially dangerous non-removable metallic device).

Optimizing Targeted Interventions for Aphasia

Jessica Richardson, PhD, Other Neuroimaging Research

Purpose of Study: The aim of this research is to determine whether non-invasive brain stimulation paired with speech-language therapy results in better outcomes than speech-language therapy alone.

Protocol Summary: Participants with stroke-induced aphasia will undergo the following assessments: EEG, MRI, and neuropsychological testing at three timepoints – pre-treatment, immediately post-treatment, and 3-months post-treatment. Participants will receive the following treatment: 15 consecutive weekday sessions of active or sham noninvasive brain stimulation combined with evidence-based speech-language therapy. Participants may earn $40 for each testing session and $15 for each therapy session in the form of gift merchandise cards.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Individuals aged 25-85, who have suffered a stroke and have communication difficulties as a result.

Reward-Guided Decision Making in Healthy Participants and Brain-Injured Patients

Jeremy Hogeveen, PhD, Traumatic Brain Injury Research

Purpose of Study: The purpose of the proposed research is to characterize the brain mechanisms underlying maladaptive reward processing in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (msTBI), with a focus on psychiatric symptoms in patients.

Protocol Summary: Participants will undergo surveys and neuropsychological testing (~3 hrs) followed by a 1.5 hr MRI session (brain scan) in which participants will perform cognitive tasks. Participants will receive $30 merchandise cards for each hour of participation for an average total of $120 – $150.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Half of the participants will be patients with a msTBI (≤3 months up to 15 years) resulting from a concussive event. For Healthy Control (HC) participants, study inclusion criteria stipulate the participants will: have no history of major psychiatric disturbance, be either native or highly competent English speakers, have 12 or more years of education, have no contraindications to Magnetic Resonance Imaging have no history of substance abuse (excluding moderate alcohol or marijuana usage), and will not be pregnant or currently trying to get pregnant.

Theta Study

Julia Stephen, PhD, Neurodevelopment

Purpose of Study: This research is being done to evaluate changes in brain function in typically developing children 6-8 years of age in relation to children 6-8 years of age with prenatal alcohol exposure.

Protocol Summary: During this study, your child will see a pediatrician for a brief physical and see a developmental psychologist to perform some paper and pencil/computer tests. Pictures of your child’s brain and brain activity will be measured using non-invasive and harmless devices called MEG (Magnetoencephalography) and MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). All participants will be given a gift card of $50 or $25 (if incomplete) per visit for participating in the study.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Children between the ages of 6-8 years old, who have never been diagnosed with a psychiatric or neurological disorder, and are medically healthy. Parent(s) must be able to give valid informed consent and the child must be able and willing to provide assent to the study procedures.

Multi-Modal Imaging of Traumatic Brain Injury and Medical Cannabis

Purpose of Study: The aim of this research is to study the effects of therapeutics, including medical cannabis, on traumatic brain injury or concussion. We will be comparing people with traumatic brain injury who are currently using therapeutics to people with traumatic brain injury who are not using therapeutics and healthy controls.

Protocol Summary: Participants will undergo a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan(approximately 1.5 hours), clinical examinations (approx. 1.5 hours), and neuropsychological examinations (approx 2 hrs). Additionally a drug screen will be administered. Multiple visits possible. Compensation available for participation.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Males and females between the ages of 18-85 with history of traumatic brain injury/concussion.

Cognitive and Psychiatric Functioning in Aging

Sephira Ryman, PhD, Aging Research

Purpose of Study: The aim of this study is to understand changes in thinking and emotional functioning in healthy older adults and individuals with neurodegenerative conditions. This research ultimately aims to facilitate earlier detection and improve treatments for neurodegenerative conditions.

Protocol Summary: Participants may be asked to do any of the following activities: complete a confidential interview and answer questionnaires regarding their mood and feelings, complete pen and paper cognitive tests (e.g. memory tests), complete tests of balance and eye movements, genetic testing, blood draw, urine drug screening, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and/or breathalyzer. They may have a magnetic resonance image (MRI) scan of their brain. Participants may be asked to return for annual research visits in which they would repeat similar assessments. Participants will earn $20.00 per hour for their participation.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Adults between the ages of 50-89. We will be recruiting healthy individuals with no cognitive concerns as well as individuals with a diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment, Vascular Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease Dementia, Lewy Body Dementia or have subjective cognitive complaints or concerns.

Brain, Behavior, and Personality 2

Kent Kiehl, PhD, Other Neuroimaging Research

Purpose of Study: The Mind Research Network is looking for healthy individuals to participate in our brain imaging research studies.

Protocol Summary: Qualifying individuals will be asked to complete interviews, paper and pencil tests, questionnaires, and MRI scans. All tests are noninvasive and safe, and you can choose to quit the study at any time. Participants will earn $20/hour.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: The study is open to male and female adults age 18 and older. If your interested in joining the study, please visit: https://p2.trendscenter.org/signup/19861

505-301-2658    Study #: 15050

Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation to Boost the Efficacy of Motivational Interviewing

Jon M. Houck, PhD, Addiction Research

Purpose of Study: This study is examining how counseling and brain stimulation might affect brain activity and alcohol use in people who are thinking about cutting back on their alcohol use.

Protocol Summary: After screening, participants complete a set of online-only questionnaires. Those who qualify and are interested will return for one in-person visit of additional surveys, counseling, brain stimulation, and neuroimaging (MEG and MRI). Surveys will be repeated one month after the in-person visit. Total study time is about 5.5 hours including online and in-person visits, and participants will earn up to $135.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: We are looking for volunteers 18-60 years old who live in the Albuquerque area and are thinking about reducing their alcohol use. Please complete the online screening form at https://redcap.mrn.org/redcap/surveys/index.php?s=MNJ7DHD94W

The CONNECT Study

Davin Quinn, MD, Traumatic Brain Injury Research

Purpose of Study: The aim of this research is to develop safe, effective treatments for complex mTBI that improve cognitive functioning.

Protocol Summary: Participants will complete assessments, undergo neuropsychological testing, and magnetic resonance imaging at the Mind Research Network (~5 hours). Repeat testing will occur 30 days after the first visit (~3 hours). The treatment involved in this study is a combination of brain stimulation and cognitive training (16 sessions). Treatment will take place at the New Mexico Veterans Affairs Hospital (~1 hour each session). Participants in this study will be paid $20 per hour of participation in gift cards.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Male and female veterans with complex mTBI experiencing cognitive symptoms between the ages of 18-69 with no MRI contraindications (presence of a potentially dangerous non-removable metallic device).

505-265-1711 ext. 4935     Study #: 21-026

Vascular Contributions to Cognitive Impairment and Dementia (VCID) Study

Gary Rosenberg, MD, Memory and Aging Research

Purpose of Study: The purpose of this study is to identify and validate biomarkers for the small vessel diseases of the brain that produce vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) among diverse participants.

Protocol Summary: Participants will complete clinical evaluations, cognitive testing, MRI scanning, and blood collection as part of this research. Procedures will occur annually for up to 4 years.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: We are seeking individuals that are Hispanic, Latino and/or Black. Individuals must be 60-90 years of age.

ASCEND Study

Julia Stephen, PhD , Neurodevelopment Research

Purpose of Study: This research is being done to evaluate brain development in typically developing children 4-7 years of age relative to children 4-7 years of age with prenatal alcohol exposure.

Protocol Summary: During this study, your child will see a pediatrician for a brief physical and your child will perform some paper and pencil/computer tests to evaluate their development. Pictures of your child’s brain and brain activity will be measured using non-invasive and harmless devices called MEG (Magnetoencephalography) and MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). All participants will be given cash of $80 or $40 depending on the study visit for participating in the study. Depending on the age of your child at enrollment, your child will return for up to three additional annual visits with additional cash provided for each study visit.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Children between the ages of 4-7 years old, who have never been diagnosed with a psychiatric or neurological disorder. Parent(s) must be able to give valid informed consent and be fluent in English.

DISCOVER Study

Andrei Vakhtin, PhD, COVID Research

Purpose of Study: This research study is designed to quantify the effects of COVID-19 on the brain and gut health.

Protocol Summary: Participants will be asked to complete questionnaires and interviews, undergo neuropsychological testing, and a blood draw. They may have a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of their brain. Participants may be asked to return 4 and 8 months later to complete similar assessments. Participants will be compensated up to a maximum of $120.00 after each visit completion.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Individuals between the ages of 18-55 who had COVID-19 more than 3 months ago and recovered fully OR have lingering health complaints may be eligible to participate. Healthy individuals between the ages of 18-55 with no histories of serious medical or emotional problems may also be eligible.

Evaluation of Capillary Heel Stick versus Dried Blood Spots in Infants? (PedsDBS)

Edward Barrett, PhD, Infant Research

Purpose of Study: This is a study about finding different ways to collect and analyze small amounts of blood in infants. The scientists are trying to see if blood level results are the same when blood is collected by a traditional “heel stick” method compared to a new method using “dried blood spots.”

Protocol Summary: After parent consent, the infant will be weighed and the parent will complete a short health questionnaire about the infant. Two - three “heel sticks” will be done at separate times on your baby’s heels. A small blood sample will be collected into a vial and another sample will be dabbed on blood spot cards. Blood values for each collection method will be compared to see if there are differences between the methods. Total participation time will take up to an hour over a single visit. Participants will be compensated $200 for participation in the study. If needed, you will also be offered transportation to and from the study visit.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Generally healthy, full-term infants from single births who currently weigh more than 6 pounds, 10 ounces and are 12 months of age may be considered for this study. Parents or legal guardians must be able to give valid informed consent.

The Learning and Exploration in Adolescence (LEAD) Study

Jeremy Hogeveen, PhD, Neurodevelopment Research

Purpose of Study: The aim of this research is to use brain imaging and behavioral measures to better understand how humans learn to make good—and, sometimes, not so good—decisions in adolescence and early adulthood.

Protocol Summary: Participation involves completing surveys and playing computerized games that can help us learn how people make simple decisions. We will also take pictures of your brain with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. The study will involve a 3-5 hour visit, and participants will also be asked to return for two follow-up visits within a five-year period. Participants will earn up to $110 after each visit in the form of a merchandise card. Note: Participants recruited via the UNM undergraduate research participant pool are eligible to receive up to 4 SONA credits for a study visit.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Participants must be between 13-21 years old, have no history of major psychiatric disturbance, be either native or fluent English speakers, and be eligible to undergo MRI brain scanning.

The Time – Resolved Exploration and Exploitation (TREE) Study

Jeremy Hogeveen, PhD, Other Neuroimaging Research

Purpose of Study: The aim of this research is to use brain imaging and behavioral measures to better understand how the brain makes decisions and why humans may sometimes explore new possibilities rather than stick with familiar alternatives.

Protocol Summary: Participation involves completing surveys and playing computerized games that can help us learn how people make simple decisions. We will also take pictures of your brain with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) scanners. The study will involve a 2.5-3.5-hour MRI/MEG study visit initially. You may also sign up to return for a follow-up brain stimulation study using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). If you sign up to be asked to return for the study, 1-2 years later you will be asked to return for two additional 2.5-3.5-hour study visits involving TMS. Participants will earn $30-$80 after each visit in the form of a merchandise card. Note: Participants recruited via the UNM undergraduate research participant pool will receive between 1-3.5 SONA credits for a study visit.

Basic Eligibility Criteria: Participants must be between 18-40 years old, have no history of major psychiatric or neurological disturbance, be either native or fluent English speakers, and be eligible to undergo MRI, MEG, and TMS protocols.

• Research //
• Addiction >
• Aging Research >
• Autism >
• Forensics >
• Medical Image Analysis >
• Neurodevelopment >
• Neuroinformatics >
• Psychosis >
• Traumatic Brain Injury >
• Neuroscience Research >
• Publications >

MRN At A Glance

1998 - 2003 //.

• National Foundation for Functional Brain Imaging founded by Senator Domenici
• Became the MIND Institute
• Mind Clinical Imaging Consortium (MCIC) Implementation

2004 - 2009 //

• Relocated to Domenici Hall on UNM North Campus
• Became the Mind Research Network
• Siemens 3T Trio MR Scanner installed
• Siemens Avanto 1.5T Mobile MRI System deployed
• Elekta Neuromag Vector View 306 Channel MEG installed

2010 - 2015 //

• Partnership with UC-Boulder
• MRN ranked a top NM biotech company
• Partnership with Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI)
• Upgraded to Siemens 3T Prisma with Total Imaging Matrix
• Merged with LRRI to become a division of Lovelace Biomedical Research Institute (LBRI)   
• Resources //
• Get In Touch
• Collaborate With Us
• In The News
• Medical image analysis
• Other Neuroimaging Research
• Science Advisory Board
• Imaging Services
• Upcoming Lectures
• Course & Events
• Community Services

• 505 272 5028
• 866 254 6463

Quick Links

• UW School of Medicine

Volunteer for Research Studies

Participate in Research  is designed to connect potential volunteers with open research studies. We are looking for volunteers just like you to help answer important questions about a variety of health conditions. Learn more about volunteering for research studies below.

About Volunteering for Research Studies

Research Study FAQs

FAQs About this Site

Research studies test whether new medicines, devices, or procedures are safe and how well they work.

There is a critical need for volunteers for these studies. Low enrollment in research studies is one of the largest problems facing the development of new and improved treatments. Eighty-five percent of studies get started late and 40 percent never finish because of a shortage of volunteers.

How You Can Help

When you participate in a research study, you are helping to move research forward. This means that cures and treatments are able to reach people more quickly.

This site can help you find studies that match your interests or needs. Both healthy volunteers and people with specific health conditions are needed to help answer important healthcare questions.

Other Ways to Help

We also encourage you to learn more about the two nationally focused research endeavors below.

To get there, the study needs one million or more people. Those who join will share information about their health over time. Researchers will study this data. What they learn could improve health for generations to come.

Learn more about the program  | How to Join

Many studies are looking for healthy people of all ages, while some are looking for people with specific health conditions. Considering becoming a ResearchMatch volunteer? Visit the ResearchMatch website to learn more about the registry, and be sure to read the Volunteer FAQ .

OHSU Visitors and Volunteers

• Enter keyword Search

Volunteer Opportunities in Research

Shadow opportunities restricted.

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

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

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

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

Commitment Requirements:

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

Eligibility :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Details 

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

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

• Shinn leads new study of cash payments and peer support to reduce homelessness

Media Inquiries

• 615-322-6397 Email

Latest Stories

• CLASS OF 2024: Emily Gaven builds team bonds, on and off the lacrosse field
• Limited Submission Opportunity: First Horizon Foundation Grants for Good

Apr 12, 2024, 4:00 PM

By Jenna Somers

Infancy is the age at which someone is most likely to live in a homeless shelter. If that sounds surprising, consider that poverty is the main reason families with young children become homeless. Given the high costs of childcare across the country, often parents leave the workforce to care for their young children. That loss of income plus the cost of housing can sometimes leave families without a home.

To help reduce homelessness among young families, Beth Shinn is beginning a new study to test whether unconditional direct cash payments and peer support to families who are homeless will help reduce the length of shelter stays and improve other aspects of their lives.

“This study was essentially designed by lived-expertise consultants, a team of mothers who had stayed in New York City shelters with their young children. When we asked them what would help families leave a shelter most rapidly and promote family well-being, the consultants said cash and peer support,” said Shinn, Cornelius Vanderbilt Chair and professor of human and organizational development at Vanderbilt Peabody College of education and human development .

For decades Shinn has studied how to prevent and end homelessness, including in the Family Options Study , the first large-scale analysis of housing program options to end homelessness, now in its 13 th year. Supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, this study found that housing vouchers were effective in stabilizing long-term housing.

The success of housing vouchers in the Family Options study informs Shinn’s rationale for testing the efficacy of unconditional direct cash payments, guided by the assumption that families, when given the funds, will know how to best spend the money to ensure they are able to leave and stay out of homeless shelters.

Shinn is collaborating with the Women in Need shelter system, the largest non-profit family shelter system in New York City. An anonymous family foundation is supporting the study with a $785,050 grant. One hundred families with a child two years old or younger at the start of the study will receive $17,000 per year (paid twice per month) and volunteer peer support for two years. Peers are women who have also gone through the shelter system as well as the numerous processes to establish housing and secure additional resources, such as opening a bank account and finding employment.

The study will include a comparison sample of 100 additional families at the WIN shelter who will only receive $600 per year without specialized peer support.  Both groups will get the usual care of the shelter system. Families who could have qualified for the study but aren’t in either the active or comparison groups will make up a larger passive group.

The primary outcome of the study will be to see whether recipients of the larger cash payments have shorter stays in the homeless shelters compared to the other two groups.

“We expect not only shorter stays in homeless shelters, but based on the findings from the Family Options Study, we also expect reductions in distress, domestic violence, substance abuse, and food insecurity, as well as better outcomes for children,” Shinn said.

Beth Shinn teaches in the Community Development and Action M.Ed. program and the Community Research and Action Ph.D. program .

Keep Reading

Peabody Scholars share guidance to inform school voucher policy

Lorrie Moore wins prestigious National Book Critics Circle Award, continues to gather accolades for new novel

Get healthy, earn cash!

Explore story topics.

• Education and Psychology
• Human and Organizational Development
• Ideas In Action
• Ideas in Action Featured
• Peabody College
• peabody-home

Sealy Center on Aging

utmb.edu/scoa

Global web ALERT button

Welcome The Sealy Center on Aging at UTMB: Leading Aging Research Since 1995

Quick links.

• Texas Resource Center on Minority Aging Research (RCMAR)
• Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC)
• World Health Organization / Pan Merican Health Organization (WHO/PAHO)
• Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research on Cancer in Texas (CERCIT)
• Health of Older Minorities Training (T32)
• Medical Student Aging Research Training (MSTAR)

Share this website:

The Sealy Center on Aging focuses on improving the health and well-being of older adults through interdisciplinary research, education, and community service by integrating the resources and activities relevant to aging at UTMB. The Center also implements our research findings in hospitals and clinics, bringing excellence and visibility to our health care system, and improving the health of older adults.

Current Events

University of Texas Medical Branch Sealy Center on Aging (SCoA) 301 University Blvd. Galveston, TX 77555-0177 Directions and Maps Phone: (409) 747-0008 Email: [email protected]

Postdoctoral Fellowship Position

Volunteer for a study on medication management for older adults.

WE ARE RECRUITING

The use of telehealth has become increasingly popular and convenient for many patients to interact with healthcare providers since the COVID-19 pandemic. This study focuses on a pharmacist-led program that incorporates the use of electronic devices to aid in medication therapy management for men and women aged 65 or older.

Are You Eligible?

• Live in an underserved community
• Age 65 or older
• Taking 5 or more medications a day
• Access to electronic device (e.g., tablet, smartphone, computer)

PARTICIPANT INCENTIVE

Each selected participant may receive complimentary items (e.g., pen, shirt, or water bottle) to compensate for his/her time. 

PARTICIPANT EXPECTATION

• Complete a pre-survey
• Attend one 60-minute initial virtual appointment in the month of May
• Attend Virtual Educational Seminar in the month of August/September
• Attend one 60-minute follow up virtual appointment in the month of November
• Complete a post-survey

Virtual appointments with a licensed pharmacist through a medication platform for minimum of two visits.

If you are interested in participating or would like more information, please contact our Program Coordinators, or scan the QR Code to complete the interest form .

This study has been approved by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Texas Southern University Institutional Review Board. Program Director Creaque Tyler, Pharm.D. [email protected] 713-313-7567 Program Coordinator Aireona Armagon [email protected] 713-313-7567

Research Programs Supported in part by the Sealy Center on Aging

The Texas Resource Center on Minority Aging Research

Claude d. pepper older americans independence center.

World Health Organization/Pan American Health Organization

Comparative effectiveness research on cancer in texas.

Health of Older Minorities Pre and Postdoctoral Training

Medical student in aging research program.

Rebeca Wong, PhD

Sheridan Lorenz Distinguished Professor in Aging and Health, Professor, Department of Population Health and Health Disparities, School of Public and Population Health; Director, WHO/ PAHO Collaborating Center on Aging and Health; Co-Director, Claude Pepper Older American Independence Center; Director ad interim, Sealy Center on Aging

James S. Goodwin, MD

George and Cynthia Mitchell Distinguished Chair of Geriatric Medicine; Co-director, Claude D Pepper Older Americans Independence Center; Senior Associate Director, Sealy Center on Aging

Social Media

UTMB Sealy Center on Aging

• Program Faculty
• Project Management
• Quality Assurance
• Data Management
• Biostatistics
• Clinical Coordination
• Regulatory Affairs
• Additional Opportunities
• How to Apply
• YCCI and CTSA Milestones Timeline
• A Tradition of Discovery
• Help Us Discover
• Research Services
• CTSA SPIRiT Pilot Project Award
• Yale Covid-19 Response
• LAM-002A Clinical Trial
• Center for Outcomes Research & Evaluation
• Diabetes Research Center
• Equity Research and Innovation Center
• Yale Cancer Center
• Meet the Leadership
• Meet the Administrative Team
• Collaborating Sites
• Scientific Cores
• External Advisory Board
• News and Media
• Posters, Papers and Manuals of Procedures
• ABC-CT (Login Required)
• Publications
• Community / Collaboration
• Clinical Trials
• Newsletters
• Clinical Research Training Events
• COVID Community Connection
• Robert S. Sherwin YCCI All Scholar Day
• Historical Perspectives on Henrietta Lacks
• FDA Office of Minority Health and Health Equity

INFORMATION FOR

• Residents & Fellows
• Researchers

A Historical Cohort, Multicenter Study to Characterize the Management, Clinical Course, and Outcomes of Pregnancies in Women Who Have Experienced a Pregnancy With Early Onset Severe HDFN

Health professionals, contact information.

For more information about this study, including how to volunteer, contact Lauren Perley

• 203.737.6040
• [email protected]

Help Us Discover!

You can help our team find trials you might be eligible for by creating a volunteer profile in MyChart. To get started, create a volunteer profile , or contact [email protected] , or call 877.978.8343 for more information.

Principal Investigator

• Mert Ozan Bahtiyar, MD Professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences; Director, Yale Fetal Care Center

Sub-Investigator

• Katherine Kohari, MD, FACOG
• Last Updated 04/09/2024
• Study HIC #2000033474

Volunteers, aged 40-65, needed for compensated research study: All foods provided and free parking

12 Apr 2024

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Copy address link to clipboard

From: Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise

We are conducting a study (IRB Protocol #21-974) to learn if consuming processed foods has any impact on blood glucose levels or cardiovascular health in adults aged 40-65 years. Participants will be provided all meals for eight weeks and consume either a diet high or low in processed foods.

This study involves 50 visits to Virginia Tech's Blacksburg campus, over 9 weeks. Total time commitment will be about 35 hours. Participants will be compensated a total of $800 upon successful completion of all study visits.

Free, convenient parking is provided.

To learn more about the sutdy and determine if you are eligible, visit: 

https://virginiatech.questionpro.com/t/AVDPlZtgEj  

For more information, please contact Elaina Marinik via email at: [email protected] .

• Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise
• Research Participation

Nurses in rural Oregon take home better pay, study finds

Registered nurses take home smaller paychecks working in rural Oregon, but effectively have higher wages than their Portland area counterparts because of the lower cost of living.

Kevin Heinrich, a licensed practical nurse, at a workstation at Mirabella Portland’s skilled nursing facility on Feb. 13, 2023. Nurses and other health care workers have become increasingly hard to find after the pandemic.

Jake Thomas / The Lund Report

That finding is billed as an unexpected one in a new study released by the Oregon Center for Nursing. Based on a survey late last year of roughly 1,800 registered nurses in Oregon, the study provides analysis that its author, Richard Allgeyer, said is not captured in national data as employers struggle to fill nursing positions and lawmakers seek to expand the profession’s training pipeline.

The center is a nonprofit set up to research workforce issues. It’s headed by a board composed largely of nurses , including several who work for health systems. The study received funding from surcharges on nurse licensing fees.

Allgeyer, the center’s research director, told The Lund Report that the study seeks to clarify conversations among employers and policymakers that in the past have relied on anecdotes and incomplete data. Rural employers have complained of having to compete with higher wages offered to nurses in the Portland area, he said, adding that rural employers can now use the study’s findings as they recruit to fill jobs.

Related: As demand for nurses rises, OHSU expands nursing program to Central Oregon

“You will make a higher dollar amount if you work in Portland,” he said. “But if you work out here in say, Baker City, your money’s going to have more power because it’s cheaper to live here.”

On average, registered nurses in Oregon earn about $55 an hour or about $114,694 annually, the study found. Oregon’s registered nurses are among the highest-paid in the country , though that ranking plummets once cost of living is taken into account.

Nurses working the Portland area’s three counties earn the highest average wage at $56 an hour, the study found.

Nurses working in Oregon’s rural areas earned less money, the study found. Eastern Oregon nurses earned the least at $44 an hour. Southwestern Oregon nurses earned $49 an hour and in the Rogue Valley, they earned nearly $51. Nurses in the east Cascades, a region that spans Hood River County to Lake County, earned $52.

However, those paychecks go farther in rural areas, the study found. Using cost-of-living data from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the study found that nurses in these regions earned roughly 300% of the region’s livable wage. Nurses in the Portland area earned 264% of the region’s livable wage, the study found.

Related: PeaceHealth hospice and home care nurses near Eugene set to begin strike over the weekend

Allgeyer said the study was prompted, in part, by the center’s earlier research on public health nurses. He said that public health nurses suspected they were paid less than other nurses but lacked data to confirm it.

The study analyzed wages by workplace setting and found public health nurses at the bottom, earning $47.55 an hour or $98,898 annually. At the top are hospital nurses, who earn $58.25 an hour or $121,163 — a roughly $22,000 difference.

Residential care, or nursing home, nurses made the second-lowest wage by workplace setting at $49.86 an hour or $103,702 annually.

The study also analyzed wages by specific jobs. At the top are administrators, who earn on average $67 or $140,221. At the bottom are school nurses, who work nine-month contracts, and make $48 an hour or $75,500 annually.

“Unfortunately, when you look at both public health and school nurses, they’re paid differently,” he said. “They’re paid by taxpayers. And so those salary structures are kind of set. But even at $47 an hour, that’s still far and above a pretty decent wage.”

The second-lowest paid nursing jobs, according to the study, are nurse educators, who make roughly $52 an hour or $80,624 annually. The finding is notable because, in addition to a shortage of nurses, Oregon also doesn’t have enough nurse educators , in part, because of the pay gap.

Related: Black nurses in Oregon face unique challenges

Lawmakers and employers have been trying to bolster the ranks of nurses after many left the profession because of the stresses brought on by the pandemic. Registered nurses are one of the five hardest-to-fill positions in the state, according to Oregon Employment Department numbers published in March .

“We’re having what we’re calling a ‘vacancy crisis,’” said Allgeyer.

He said Oregon’s number of registered nurses grew about 11% last year but he said employers are having a hard time retaining them. While some nurses are paid more than others, they are making a living wage across the board, he said.

He said that as lawmakers and employers look to retain nurses, they should look beyond wages.

“When you’re looking at retention efforts, the literature suggests that money is one factor,” he said. “And not even may not even be the most important factor because we’re looking at things like company culture, organizational culture, the ability to fit in, belonging, feeling appreciated. Those kinds of things are really, really important to nurses.”

This story was originally published by The Lund Report, an independent nonprofit health news organization based in Oregon. You can reach Jake Thomas at [email protected] or via twitter.com @jakethomas2009.

OPB’s First Look newsletter

Related stories.

Oregon volunteer nurse treats hundreds in Gaza

Keizer-based nurse Yvonne Groenhout has decades of experience as an intensive care unit nurse. She is has also volunteered her medical expertise in Chicago, Los Angeles, Ukraine and, most recently, Gaza, as reported in the Salem Reporter.

Oregon Legislature passes bill aimed at expanding nurse education to rural communities

SB 523 allows community colleges to offer nursing bachelor’s degrees, in hopes of improving education pathways, especially in rural Oregon.

Oregon might cap how many patients can be assigned to a single hospital nurse or nursing assistant

If it passes, the compromise bill could radically overhaul Oregon’s nurse staffing law and make it among the first in the nation to create nurse-to-patient ratios .

Oregon’s statewide hospital association focused on nurse staffing shortages in 2023

Among the other issues they say deserve attention are, Medicaid reimbursements and patients stuck boarding at hospitals because of a lack of other options.

As demand for nurses rises, OHSU expands nursing program to Central Oregon

Central Oregon will be the third spot for OHSU’s accelerated bachelor’s degree in nursing, which already is available in Portland and Ashland. The program graduated 128 students in the last academic year and is on track to graduate even more this year. The Bend location will start with eight students in July.

Streaming Now

BBC Witness

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

Explore by Topic

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

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

Research volunteers needed for an eating behavior study

By Hub staff report

Volunteers needed for a study at the Phipps building on the East Baltimore campus. The study involves completing questionnaires and doing food selection tasks, including taste preference and olfactory surveys to gauge insight on eating behaviors and food preferences. Compensation is $50 for completing one in-person visit; parking is provided.

If you are interested in participating, fill out this survey .

PI: Kimberly Smith, PhD (#IRB00214417) Contact: Grace Grill, ggrill2@jh.edu

News Network

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

Discover JHU

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

• See us on facebook
• See us on twitter
• See us on youtube
• See us on linkedin
• See us on instagram

Two key brain systems are central to psychosis, Stanford Medicine-led study finds

When the brain has trouble filtering incoming information and predicting what’s likely to happen, psychosis can result, Stanford Medicine-led research shows.

April 11, 2024 - By Erin Digitale

People with psychosis have trouble filtering relevant information (mesh funnel) and predicting rewarding events (broken crystal ball), creating a complex inner world. Emily Moskal

Inside the brains of people with psychosis, two key systems are malfunctioning: a “filter” that directs attention toward important external events and internal thoughts, and a “predictor” composed of pathways that anticipate rewards.

Dysfunction of these systems makes it difficult to know what’s real, manifesting as hallucinations and delusions. 

The findings come from a Stanford Medicine-led study , published April 11 in  Molecular Psychiatry , that used brain scan data from children, teens and young adults with psychosis. The results confirm an existing theory of how breaks with reality occur.

“This work provides a good model for understanding the development and progression of schizophrenia, which is a challenging problem,” said lead author  Kaustubh Supekar , PhD, clinical associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences.

The findings, observed in individuals with a rare genetic disease called 22q11.2 deletion syndrome who experience psychosis as well as in those with psychosis of unknown origin, advance scientists’ understanding of the underlying brain mechanisms and theoretical frameworks related to psychosis.

During psychosis, patients experience hallucinations, such as hearing voices, and hold delusional beliefs, such as thinking that people who are not real exist. Psychosis can occur on its own and isa hallmark of certain serious mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is also characterized by social withdrawal, disorganized thinking and speech, and a reduction in energy and motivation.

It is challenging to study how schizophrenia begins in the brain. The condition usually emerges in teens or young adults, most of whom soon begin taking antipsychotic medications to ease their symptoms. When researchers analyze brain scans from people with established schizophrenia, they cannot distinguish the effects of the disease from the effects of the medications. They also do not know how schizophrenia changes the brain as the disease progresses. 

To get an early view of the disease process, the Stanford Medicine team studied young people aged 6 to 39 with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, a genetic condition with a 30% risk for psychosis, schizophrenia or both. 

Kaustubh Supekar

Brain function in 22q11.2 patients who have psychosis is similar to that in people with psychosis of unknown origin, they found. And these brain patterns matched what the researchers had previously theorized was generating psychosis symptoms.

“The brain patterns we identified support our theoretical models of how cognitive control systems malfunction in psychosis,” said senior study author  Vinod Menon , PhD, the Rachael L. and Walter F. Nichols, MD, Professor; a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences; and director of the  Stanford Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience Laboratory .

Thoughts that are not linked to reality can capture the brain’s cognitive control networks, he said. “This process derails the normal functioning of cognitive control, allowing intrusive thoughts to dominate, culminating in symptoms we recognize as psychosis.”

Cerebral sorting  

Normally, the brain’s cognitive filtering system — aka the salience network — works behind the scenes to selectively direct our attention to important internal thoughts and external events. With its help, we can dismiss irrational thoughts and unimportant events and focus on what’s real and meaningful to us, such as paying attention to traffic so we avoid a collision.

The ventral striatum, a small brain region, and associated brain pathways driven by dopamine, play an important role in predicting what will be rewarding or important. 

For the study, the researchers assembled as much functional MRI brain-scan data as possible from young people with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, totaling 101 individuals scanned at three different universities. (The study also included brain scans from several comparison groups without 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: 120 people with early idiopathic psychosis, 101 people with autism, 123 with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and 411 healthy controls.) 

The genetic condition, characterized by deletion of part of the 22nd chromosome, affects 1 in every 2,000 to 4,000 people. In addition to the 30% risk of schizophrenia or psychosis, people with the syndrome can also have autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which is why these conditions were included in the comparison groups.

The researchers used a type of machine learning algorithm called a spatiotemporal deep neural network to characterize patterns of brain function in all patients with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome compared with healthy subjects. With a cohort of patients whose brains were scanned at the University of California, Los Angeles, they developed an algorithmic model that distinguished brain scans from people with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome versus those without it. The model predicted the syndrome with greater than 94% accuracy. They validated the model in additional groups of people with or without the genetic syndrome who had received brain scans at UC Davis and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, showing that in these independent groups, the model sorted brain scans with 84% to 90% accuracy.

The researchers then used the model to investigate which brain features play the biggest role in psychosis. Prior studies of psychosis had not given consistent results, likely because their sample sizes were too small. 

Vinod Menon

Comparing brain scans from 22q11.2 deletion syndrome patients who had and did not have psychosis, the researchers showed that the brain areas contributing most to psychosis are the anterior insula (a key part of the salience network or “filter”) and the ventral striatum (the “reward predictor”); this was true for different cohorts of patients.

In comparing the brain features of people with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and psychosis against people with psychosis of unknown origin, the model found significant overlap, indicating that these brain features are characteristic of psychosis in general.

A second mathematical model, trained to distinguish all subjects with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and psychosis from those who have the genetic syndrome but without psychosis, selected brain scans from people with idiopathic psychosis with 77.5% accuracy, again supporting the idea that the brain’s filtering and predicting centers are key to psychosis.

Furthermore, this model was specific to psychosis: It could not classify people with idiopathic autism or ADHD.

“It was quite exciting to trace our steps back to our initial question — ‘What are the dysfunctional brain systems in schizophrenia?’ — and to discover similar patterns in this context,” Menon said. “At the neural level, the characteristics differentiating individuals with psychosis in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome are mirroring the pathways we’ve pinpointed in schizophrenia. This parallel reinforces our understanding of psychosis as a condition with identifiable and consistent brain signatures.” However, these brain signatures were not seen in people with the genetic syndrome but no psychosis, holding clues to future directions for research, he added.

Applications for treatment or prevention

In addition to supporting the scientists’ theory about how psychosis occurs, the findings have implications for understanding the condition — and possibly preventing it.

“One of my goals is to prevent or delay development of schizophrenia,” Supekar said. The fact that the new findings are consistent with the team’s prior research on which brain centers contribute most to schizophrenia in adults suggests there may be a way to prevent it, he said. “In schizophrenia, by the time of diagnosis, a lot of damage has already occurred in the brain, and it can be very difficult to change the course of the disease.”

“What we saw is that, early on, functional interactions among brain regions within the same brain systems are abnormal,” he added. “The abnormalities do not start when you are in your 20s; they are evident even when you are 7 or 8.”

Our discoveries underscore the importance of approaching people with psychosis with compassion.

The researchers plan to use existing treatments, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation or focused ultrasound, targeted at these brain centers in young people at risk of psychosis, such as those with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome or with two parents who have schizophrenia, to see if they prevent or delay the onset of the condition or lessen symptoms once they appear. 

The results also suggest that using functional MRI to monitor brain activity at the key centers could help scientists investigate how existing antipsychotic medications are working. 

Although it’s still puzzling why someone becomes untethered from reality — given how risky it seems for one’s well-being — the “how” is now understandable, Supekar said. “From a mechanistic point of view, it makes sense,” he said.

“Our discoveries underscore the importance of approaching people with psychosis with compassion,” Menon said, adding that his team hopes their work not only advances scientific understanding but also inspires a cultural shift toward empathy and support for those experiencing psychosis. 

“I recently had the privilege of engaging with individuals from our department’s early psychosis treatment group,” he said. “Their message was a clear and powerful: ‘We share more similarities than differences. Like anyone, we experience our own highs and lows.’ Their words were a heartfelt appeal for greater empathy and understanding toward those living with this condition. It was a call to view psychosis through a lens of empathy and solidarity.”

Researchers contributed to the study from UCLA, Clinica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, the University of Oxford and UC Davis.

The study was funded by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute’s Uytengsu-Hamilton 22q11 Neuropsychiatry Research Program, FONDEYCT (the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development of the government of Chile), ANID-Chile (the Chilean National Agency for Research and Development) and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (grants AG072114, MH121069, MH085953 and MH101779).

About Stanford Medicine

Stanford Medicine is an integrated academic health system comprising the Stanford School of Medicine and adult and pediatric health care delivery systems. Together, they harness the full potential of biomedicine through collaborative research, education and clinical care for patients. For more information, please visit med.stanford.edu .

Artificial intelligence

Exploring ways AI is applied to health care