0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prosocial Interventions and Health Outcomes : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates associations between prosocial interventions and health outcomes as well as barriers to and facilitators of such interventions.

          Key Points

          Question

          Are prosocial interventions associated with improved health outcomes?

          Findings

          This systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 studies found that prosocial interventions were associated with improved health outcomes among vulnerable groups and have been useful for addressing health disparities. Pay-it-forward approaches were associated with increased uptake of diagnostic tests or vaccines among vulnerable groups, and community connectedness facilitated prosocial interventions.

          Meaning

          Prosocial interventions may generate benefits for both givers and recipients.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Prosocial interventions encourage voluntary actions that benefit others. Community solidarity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, expanding mutual aid programs, and health workforce issues have accelerated prosocial health interventions.

          Objective

          To investigate the association of prosocial interventions with health outcomes in clinical trials and observational studies.

          Data Sources

          In this systematic review and meta-analysis informed by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 5 databases (MEDLINE [via PubMed], Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus) were searched from database inception through February 23, 2023. The search included terms for altruism and prosocial behaviors, health outcomes, and study type.

          Study Selection

          Included studies, determined by multiple reviewers, compared health outcomes in a prosocial intervention group with a nonintervention group.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, data extraction and synthesis captured quantitative and qualitative data. To pool data from quantitative studies, random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the impact of prosocial interventions. To combine data from quantitative and qualitive studies, data were transformed into qualitative narratives using meta-aggregation.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The main outcome was whether prosocial interventions were associated with improved health outcomes. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation of these interventions were assessed.

          Results

          The search identified 5229 citations; 30 studies were included in the synthesis. Studies indicated that prosocial interventions were associated with positive health outcomes for givers (17 studies [56.7]) and recipients (8 [26.7%]). Prosocial interventions included acts of kindness (12 studies [40.0%]), cash gifts (7 [23.3%]), pay-it-forward approaches (6 [20.0%]), and expressions of kindness (5 [16.7%]). Improvements were reported in depression, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, vaccine uptake, physical activity, and individual biomarkers. Data from 6 studies (20.0%) demonstrated that pay-it-forward approaches were associated with increased uptake of diagnostic tests or vaccines among vulnerable groups (moderate certainty of evidence). Data from 14 studies (46.7%) suggested that community connectedness facilitated prosocial interventions. Shared vulnerabilities among groups (eg, sexual minority individuals, older adults) may provide a context for collective mobilization to improve health in local communities.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This systematic review and meta-analysis found that prosocial interventions were associated with improved health outcomes among vulnerable groups and have been useful for addressing health disparities. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate prosocial interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

              This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                8 December 2023
                December 2023
                8 December 2023
                : 6
                : 12
                : e2346789
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                [2 ]University of North Carolina Project–China, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
                [3 ]Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
                [4 ]Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
                [5 ]Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [6 ]Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                [7 ]Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                [8 ]Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: October 26, 2023.
                Published: December 8, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46789
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Byrne M et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Margaret Byrne, PhD, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Dr, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 ( maggie.e.holly@ 123456unc.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Byrne and Tan had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Byrne and Tan are co–first authors and Dr Ramaswamy and Prof Tucker are co–senior authors for this article.
                Concept and design: Byrne, Tan, Wu, Marley, Tang, Ramaswamy, Tucker.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Byrne, Tan, Marley, Hlatshwako, Tao, Bissram, Nachman, Tucker.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Byrne, Tan, Tao, Bissram, Nachman, Ramaswamy, Tucker.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Byrne, Tan, Wu, Marley, Hlatshwako, Tang, Tucker.
                Statistical analysis: Byrne, Tan, Marley, Hlatshwako, Tao.
                Obtained funding: Tan, Wu, Tucker.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Tan, Hlatshwako, Bissram, Nachman, Tang, Tucker.
                Supervision: Wu, Tang, Ramaswamy, Tucker.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was funded by grant 1R01AI158826 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The NIAID had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                zoi231366
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46789
                10709779
                38064214
                d2525120-342b-492b-8b9d-857c781f3e8c
                Copyright 2023 Byrne M et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 27 July 2023
                : 26 October 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Public Health

                Comments

                Comment on this article