Narrative literature review PDF

3.2.1 Narrative Review

Mortality risk

Further, prospective research design studies demonstrating an association between volunteering and mortality include Ayalon [2008], using Israeli data, Luoh and Herzog [2002], using the Assets and Health Dynamics [AHEAD] data, and Musick, Herzog, and House [1999], using data from the Americans Changing Lives study, adding to substantial empirical literature that evaluates the benefits of helping others and being socially engaged.

Some research indicates that the benefit of volunteering for human longevity may be strongest for certain kinds of people and under certain conditions. For example, Konrath, Fuhrel-Forbis, Lou, and Brown [2012], examining 4-year follow-up data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, discovered that the survival benefits accrue only to those who volunteer for other-oriented reasons [i.e., in alignment with social connections or altruistic values]. Lee, Steinman, and Tan [2011] demonstrated with Health and Retirement Study data that volunteering is only beneficial in reducing mortality risk among those who are nondrivers, and they propose that volunteering may benefit those who are otherwise at risk of social isolation.

Okun et al. [2010], using 6-year follow-up data from the Later Life Study of Social Exchanges, argue that volunteering serves as a buffer between functional limitations and mortality, with one result being that people with functional limitations may benefit from volunteering in terms of expanded longevity. In comparison, Rogers et al. [2016], using the English Longitudinal Study on Aging in an 11-year follow-up research design, reveal that the benefit of volunteering for reducing risk of mortality occurs only among those who report no disabilities.

Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviews include consensus and critical reviews. When a group of scholars create a consensus review [also known as a best practice panel], they draw from their expertise and evaluation of the scientific literature. These experts have been asked to lend their expertise to the review because they are very familiar with the evidence and have been regular contributors to the literature. The greatest weakness of a consensus review results from the potential for bias entering into the final conclusions. Bias may result from the selection process that initiates a review. That is, there is little transparency about how editors or funding agencies select the experts to complete reviews. Editors [of a book, journal, or other document] or funders may include experts who confirm their biases and exclude experts who offer disconfirmatory perspectives [Slocum et al., 2012]. The expert may also introduce bias by placing inordinate weight on a single research article or completely ignore another. This form of bias is typically unintentional; however, human beings inadvertently allow bias to influence their conclusions. Group-based bias can also influence the reported outcomes of consensus reviews. For example, when a highly prestigious member of an expert panel states his or her opinion, others may agree without applying due diligence. This source of bias is less likely to occur when experts hold diverse views about the literature. Unfortunately, it is also more difficult to achieve consensus when a larger, more diverse group of experts write a review [Wilczynski, 2012].

A critical review is similar to a consensus review, but it is completed by a single researcher or a group of researchers who have not been invited to discuss their views based on their expertise. These reviews are prone to the same sources of bias as consensus reviews. Despite these limitations, consensus and critical reviews were the primary source of evidence that could guide practitioners until recently. They may still prove very useful, particularly when a systematic review closely matching the characteristics of a given case is not available. Evidence-based practitioners should recognize that a consensus or critical review of the literature may reflect a better fit with the specifics of a given case. For example, a critical review could match the setting, diagnosis for participant, target behavior, etc., in every wayand better than the parameters used to conduct the only available systematic review.

How Well does ABCT Work?

Recent narrative reviews [e.g., OFarrell & Fals-Stewart, 2003] and meta-analytic reviews [e.g., Powers, Vedel, & Emmelkamp, 2008] conclude that ABCT has better outcomes than individual-based treatment for alcoholism, and indeed other drug use problems. Based on 12 randomized controlled trials of BCT [8 relating to alcohol and 4 relating to other substance abuse], Powers et al. [2008] found that ABCT outperformed controlled conditions when all follow-up time points were combined. When results were assessed for specific post-therapy time points, results were somewhat different. Specifically, ABCT produced improvements in relationship satisfaction at post-treatment, but did not result in improvements in the frequency or consequences of alcohol/substance use relative to control conditions. At follow-up, ABCT retained its superiority in terms of elevated relationship satisfaction, but also showed better outcomes on alcohol/substance use measures at later follow-ups. As noted earlier, ABCT programs contain some variability in therapeutic factors that may differentially account for positive findings. For example, three studies reviewed by Powers et al. [2008] included naltrexone or disulfiram in the couple conditions and not others. However, Powers and colleagues found that the effect sizes for BCT with and without these medication regimes were comparable. These authors conclude that the improvements in relationship satisfaction evident at the end of therapy may provide a context for improved substance-related gains in the longer term.

In general, ABCT has been used with couples in which only one partner [typically the male] is the identified drinker and the alcohol problems are moderate to severe. It is less clear how well ABCT works for couples where both partners have substance abuse problems and how well ABCT works for problem drinkers [as opposed to alcohol-dependent people]. OFarrell and Fals-Stewart [2006] recommend that a couples approach is contraindicated when both partners have substance abuse problems. Preliminary research suggests that ABCT may not be any more efficacious than alcohol-focused spouse involvement for people with mild to moderate alcohol problems. Walitzer and Dermen [2004] compared BCT [group format] to alcohol-focused spouse involvement and treatment for problem drinkers only. For those whose partners participated, identified drinkers reported fewer heavy drinking days and more abstinence/light drinking days in the year following treatment relative to treatment for problem drinkers only. However, the combination of alcohol-focused spouse involvement and BCT yielded no better outcomes than alcohol-focused spouse involvement alone. More research is needed on the utility of ABCT for problem drinkers. It is possible that couples with less severe alcohol problems may also have less severe couple relationship problems, so ABCT-related improvements may not be as marked. It is also possible that these couples may have more circumscribed problems than those with severe alcohol problems and that a tailored ABCT program to meet circumscribed relationship issues might yet prove effective. It would be surprising if such couples approaches were not helpful to couples with less severe alcohol problems, but this remains an empirical question yet to be tested.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

In this narrative review, we have described evidence for an association between personality and diabetes. Individuals with high conscientiousness seem to experience a reduced risk of developing, and dying from, diabetes, indicating that this personality trait may affect both the etiology and prognosis of type 2 diabetes. One of the mechanisms underlying the protective effect of high conscientiousness was the ability to maintain a healthy body weight. Other evidence suggests bidirectionality whereby having multiple chronic conditions, including diabetes, was related to reductions in conscientiousness over time.

In general, the contribution of personality to diabetes risk and prognosis seemed relatively modest compared with conventional diabetes risk factors, such as obesity and physical inactivity. In light of this small effect size and the overall difficulty to modify psychological characteristics, personality is unlikely to be considered as an important risk factor in diabetes prevention strategies. In relation to targeted strategies, however, personality might have a role. Better understanding of the role of personality in diabetes etiology and progression could help in developing more personalized prevention and treatment strategies for people with high risk of diabetes and those who already have type 2 diabetes.

8.4.1 Positive and negative outcomes of being an activist

In an extensive narrative review, Vestergren, Drury, and Chiriac [2016] summarized the outcomes for participants after they had taken part in protest and activism. The authors categorized the changes they found in published research articles into two domains, the behavioral or objective and the psychological or subjective changes. As already suggested, these effects point to both negative and positive personal outcomes for individuals engaging in protest and activism. On the one hand, activists reported negative objective changes, such as a higher rate of divorces, fewer children, and tension affecting personal relationships, which were not part of their activism. These effects might be related, for example, to participants changes in attitudes toward life or a lack of time caused by the engagement in collective actions. However, on the other hand, activists also described the formation of new and strong social relationships during the collective action. They emphasized positive subjective changes of, e.g., feeling empowered by the participation, increased self-esteem and self-confidence, taking up a new job in the educational, social or creative area, gaining new organizational skills and knowledge.

Participating in collective action in general and in the context of environmental activism more specifically can be a frustrating enterprise. Especially when actions do not succeed as planned, such failures can evoke feelings of frustration and helplessness. Activists need strategies for dealing with frustration to ensure their continued participation, given that fundamental societal change usually needs a long time to unfold and that the process of change is often characterized by setbacks. One obvious psychosocial resource for coping with these negative experiences is the group itself: As part of groups, individuals experience that collective action helps them deal with what might seem like an unsolvable, overwhelming problem at first. To elaborate on this idea of the group as a psychological resource, we briefly review evidence from the London road protests including the mass occupation of a green area [Drury & Reicher, 2005]. This campaign in northeast London was part of an active UK-wide antiroads movement. People living in the area were involved and hundreds of people motivated by ecological principles joined the protests. The activists mobilized for a rally at a green area, which should be removed within the construction of the road. On the day of the rally, contractors had erected a fence around the green and it was guarded by security. The rally first took place in front of the fence. After the rally had finished, participants started to climb over the fence, started to push it down, and the crowd entered the site.