Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of Bias table (Based on QUIPSa)

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

Author 1. Study participation 2. Study attrition 3. Determinant measurement 4. Outcome measurement 5. Study confounding 6. Statistical analysis and reporting
5a. Confounders measured    5d. Confounders accounted for in analysis
  1a. Consecutive series of participants 1b. Adequate participation rate (> 70%) 2a. Adequate follow-up rate (≥80%) 2b. No important differences between participants and drop-out 3a. ≥70% complete data for each determinant 3b. Method and setting of the measurement is the same for all study participants 3c. Appropriate methods of imputation 4a. Outcome measurement truly captures volunteering 4b. Method and setting of measurement is the same for all study participants 5a1. Age 5a2. Socioeconomic Status 5a3. Gender 5a4. Participation in voluntary work at baseline 5b. Method and setting of measurement is the same for all study participants 5c. Appropriate methods of imputation 5d1. Age 5d2. Socioeconomic Status 5d3. Gender 5d4. Participation in voluntary work at baseline 6a. Statistical model adequate for study design 6b. No overfitting 6c. No selective reporting of results
Ajrouch et al. [18] + + ? + + N.A.b + + + + + + N.A. + + + + + +
Bartels et al. [19] + ? ? ? ? + ? + + + + + + ? + + + + + +
Bekkers [20] ? + ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + +
Broese van Groenou & Van Tilburg [21] + ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +
Choi & Chou [22] + + ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + +/−c +
Cramm & Nieboer [23] ? + N.A. + + + + + + + N.A. + + + + + +
Curl et al. [24] + ? ? ? + + N.A. + + + + + + + N.A. + + + + + + +
Curl et al. [25] + ? ? ? + + N.A. + + + + + + + N.A. + + + + + + +
Einolf & Philbrick [26] + ? + ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +
Hank & Erlinghagen [27] + ? ? ? ? + ? + + + + ? ? + + + + + + +
Johnston [28] + ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + +
Lim & Mac Gregor [29] + ? ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +
McNamara & Gonzales [30] + ? ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Mike et al. [31] + ? ? ? + + N.A. + + + + + + + N.A. + + + + + + +
Nesbit [32] + ? ? ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +
Okun et al. [33] + ? ? ? + + N.A. + + + + + + + N.A. + + + + + + +
Parkinson [34] + ? ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +
Pavlova & Silbereisen [35] + +/−d ?e −/+f + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Pavlova & Silbereisen [36] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Son & Wilson [37] + + ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Son & Wilson [38] + + ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Son & Wilson [39] + + ? ? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Voorpostel & Coffé [40] + ? ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +
Voorpostel & Coffé [41] + ? ? ? + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + +
  1. aQUIPS Quality of Prognosis Studies in Systematic Reviews. Assessment: + (Yes) (represents low risk of bias); - (No) (represents high risk of bias); ? (Unclear) (represents uncertain risk of bias, insufficient information was available to assess the risk of bias)
  2. bNot Applicable
  3. cFor the outcome volunteer engagement (starting) there is no over fitting, so low risk of bias, but for the outcome volunteer cessation (quitting), there is slight over fitting of the model, so high risk of bias
  4. dBaseline participation in the first sample (age group 16-43) was adequate (77%), but the baseline participation in the second sample (age group 56-75) not (52,9%)
  5. eNo information is provided on the follow-up rates. However, the second sample (age group 56-75) is the same as the sample used in Pavlova et al. 2016 and attrition is higher than 20%
  6. fAttrition in the first sample (age group 16-43) was selective w.r.t. volunteering at T1, for the second sample (age group 56-75) attrition was not selective w.r.t. volunteering at T1
\