Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Dec 1;6(12):e2346789.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46789.

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

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Margaret Byrne et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Overview of Prosocial Interventions From the Perspective of the Giver and Recipient
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. PRISMA Diagram
PRISMA indicates Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Meta-Analysis of Within-Study Comparisons of Pay-It-Forward vs Non–Pay-It-Forward Arms for the Relative Risk (RR) and Relative Difference (RD) of Receiving a Diagnostic Test or Vaccine
The group using the pay-it-forward approach was the treatment arm, and the group that did not use this approach was the control arm. Weights are from random-effects analysis.

References

    1. Piliavin JA, Charng HW. Altruism: a review of recent theory and research. Annu Rev Sociol. 1990;16:27-65. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.000331 - DOI
    1. Eisenberg N, Mussen PH. The Roots of Prosocial Behavior in Children. Cambridge University Press; 1989. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511571121 - DOI
    1. Pfattheicher S, Nielsen YA, Thielmann I. Prosocial behavior and altruism: a review of concepts and definitions. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022;44:124-129. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.021 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wilson J. Volunteering. Annu Rev Sociol. 2000;26:215-240. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.215 - DOI
    1. Laguna M, Mazur Z, Kędra M, Ostrowski K. Interventions stimulating prosocial helping behavior: a systematic review. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2020;50(11):676-696. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12704 - DOI

Publication types