Effectiveness of Intergenerational Exchange Programs Between Adolescents and Older Adults: A Systematic Review

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flow diagram of search and screening processes. Adapted from Page et al. (2021).

Table 1. Recommendations for best practice of intergenerational exchange programs.

Provide training for program facilitators and other key stakeholders on how to plan, implement, and sustain IG studies, paying particular attention to: Align content with the developmental age of participants. Achieve a balance of engaged facilitation while leaving space for natural relationship development between participants. Provide training and education for participants prior to commencement of IG activities, targeting skill development and awareness building. Consider including in the program design time for participants to get to know each other before documented IG engagement commences. Consider the use of longer-term IG programs. Ensure that both generations are included in IG activities as equal contributors. Document efforts to include diverse samples, e.g., gender, socioeconomic status, or educational achievements. Consider flexible and iterative frameworks to structure, implement, and assess future programs.

Table

Does the title reflect the content?

Does the abstract summarize the key components?

Is the rationale for undertaking the research clearly outlined?

Is the literature review comprehensive and up to date?

Is the aim of the study clearly stated?

Are all ethical issues identified and addressed?

Is the methodology identified and addressed?

Is the design clearly identified and a rationale provided? (Quantitative studies) Are philosophical background and study design identified and rationale for design evident? (Qualitative studies)

Is there an experimental hypothesis clearly stated and are the key variables identified? (Quantitative) Are the major concepts identified? (Qualitative)

Is the population identified? (Quantitative) Is the context of the study outlined? (Qualitative) i.e., where they were recruited/where it was run

Is the sample adequately described and reflective of the population? (Quantitative) Selection of participants described and sampling method identified? (Qualitative)

Is the method of data collection valid and reliable? (Quantitative) Is the method of data collection auditable? (Qualitative)

Is the method of data analysis valid and reliable? Must be described and justified. Any statistical test used must be appropriate (Quantitative) Is the method of data collection credible and confirmable? (Qualitative)

Are the results presented in a way that is appropriate and clear?

Do the discussion and conclusion discuss the findings of the paper/reflect the purpose of study?

Are the results generalizable?

Table

Author(s), Year, and Quality Score	Country	Participant Information	Recruitment, Sampling, Setting	Methodology, Study Design	Study Length, IG Activities	Measurement, Analysis	Outcomes
DeMichelis et al. (2015) 42	Canada	Younger participants (YP): n=13, no age range (M=18, SD=.27). Older participants (OP): n=10, aged 60–89. No gender breakdown. Nationality, religiousness, religious preference.	YP recruited from high-school English class. OP were volunteers at a senior’s health care facility and living in the community. High school classroom.	Mixed method, pre-post. Not specific but appears that they were all in one class together.	For 1.5hours a week for 3 weeks and led by English teacher, OP and YP engaged in class discussions about the book Angela’s Ashes, which involves IG themes. Prior, all wrote an autobiographical essay outlining their expectations then completed reflective and additional autobiographical assignments.	All completed two measures pre and post: Self-assessed wisdom scale Temporal satisfaction with life scale Reflections and assignments coded for wisdom according to 5 SAWS dimensions and grounded theory approach adopted to reveal sub-dimensions.	Impact of IG engagement: Sig decreases in OP’s estimation of their own critical life experiences and humor OP Increased past life satisfaction No repeated-measureeffects for YP Qualitative: Mostly presented similarities and differences between groups Impact for both: IG classroom stimulated them both to reexamine their own values and beliefs. They both learned from the discovery of shared experiences. Psychological benefits reported by both.
DeSouza (2007) 41	Brazil	YP: n=111, aged 12–18. OP: n=32, aged 60+ No gender breakdown for participants but majority F focus groups (see measurement, analysis). No additional information.	YP assigned from five 7&8^th grade classes in one secondary school & OP from this catchment area. City selected due to low-income urban characteristics and high proportion of migrants, predisposing to poor social cohesion. High school classroom.	Qualitative, grounded theory. Random selection of all participants using random number tables.	Larger groups of average 30 YP, split into approx. 10 YP and minimum 2 OP shared life stories for 2 hours per week for 5 months, completing a mean of 14 sessions.	Qualitative focus groups, all single-sex and single-age: OP: four groups (3F), average n=6 attendees YP: 10 groups (5F), average n=9 attendees Grounded theory analysis; implementation of SDRT (see outcomes).	Blended theory developed as framework to support findings: Social Learning, Dialogical and Reflective Theory (SDRT). OP: Improved attitudes toward YP in women but not men YP: All showed improved attitudes toward older adults
Dipardo and Schnack (2004) 42	United States	YP: n=23 (n=16F), aged 8^th grade (13–14). OP: n=23 (n=18F), no ages provided. Social class, ethnicity.	YP recruited from an 8^th grade language arts class and OP were all community volunteers. Home setting.	Qualitative, phenomenology One YP to one OP, remaining in these pairs throughout.	A year-long study, consisting of two five-week reading cycles (one in autumn and one in spring). IG pairs read each book at the same time while corresponding in weekly dialogue journals. YP have free choice of first book and the second is from a selection focusing on Holocaust and WW2 topics. Participants meet face to face three times; during two joint interviews and at the concluding party.	Individual interviews with all Joint interviews with focal pairs Dialogue journals Field notes Participants’ written comments on partnership Other data include interview with director of program, miscellaneous written artifacts, and other field notes	OP: Improved ability to converse with adolescents Enhanced mental alertness via reading and writing Pride in providing model to their partners YP: Antidote to the “intensified and sometimes lonely lives of today’s adolescents” (p.31) Both: Focused search for commonalities Praise from OP to YP and appreciation from YP to OP Developing friendships Enhanced understanding of the other generation Countering negative perceptions of the other Mind expanding and enjoyable opportunity to get to know each other via shared reflection on books Reciprocal curiosity about each other
Gamliel and Gabay (2014) 39	Israel	YP: n=32, aged 11–12. OP: n=29, aged 66–77. No gender breakdown. Socioeconomic status, ethnicity.	Schools selected according to similarity on eight features, including locality and socioeconomic situation. Primary school classroom.	Mixed method, pre-post. YP and OP paired. No indication of how pairs were assigned.	Initial pre-collaboration workshop for YP, then for two hours once a week, during one school semester (3 months; program is run twice during the school year, once per semester) IG pairs engage in computer activities together, deciding themselves on specific topics. A leading teacher runs and oversees implementation. Program concluded with a ceremony and all participants receive a certificate.	Quantitative: Closed-ended questionnaires collected during face-to-face interviews Pre: YP: n=29, OP: n=25; Post: YP: n=27, OP: n=24. Questionnaires devised from a mixture of validated and author-generated items Qualitative: Observations and unstructured interviews. Information exchange processes measures via class follow-ups; communication observation; event logging; monitoring reports; and website content monitoring.	Knowledge exchange: Sig improved OP’s assessment of YP’s contribution and teaching skills. Continuous praise from OP to YP. Increase in YP’s self-confidence and teaching abilities and achievements. Displays of initiative and control Sig decrease in YP’s assessment of OP’s learning skills. Observations saw extra efforts required by YP, but this did not affect attitudes toward OP or teaching.
							Empowerment: Sig increase in all measures by both Strongest increase was for OP on communal involvement OP improved more on self-efficacy (strongly associated with YP’s contribution) YP improved more on self-confidence Pre-measured differences between groups were eliminated in post-results OP’s empowerment associated with closeness to YP YP empowerment associated with their own skills Supported by qual feedback Attitudes: Strongest improvement in perceived closeness to each other YP’s perception of OP’s inclusion in the computer world also improved
Jones et al. (2004) 39	United States	YP: n=5 (n=3F), aged 12–17, with emotional or behavioral problems). OP: n=8 (n=6F), aged 51–94, low-income. Ethnicity, education, medical diagnoses, frequency of IG contact outside of study, living grandparent/child, family situation, living arrangement, important activities.	Convenience sample of volunteers from two support groups (a group for well older adults to facilitate socialization and reduce isolation, and a group for YP to assist in dealing with emotional difficulties). Independent living facility for older adults.	Qualitative, descriptive. Whole group as well as one-to-one activities. Originally, the entire group consisted of 10 OP and 10 YP. However, after OP dropout due to YP hyperactivity, YP n=5, and cohesiveness developed over time.	They met bi-monthly for 11 months (22 sessions in total, roughly 45 minutes each) and engaged in various activities including discussions, games, talent shows and outings. Activities were designed around Yalom (1985) 12 therapeutic factors.	Demographic questionnaire for each group, developed by researchers Revised Critical Incidence Questionnaire Yalom’s (1985) Therapeutic Factors Open-ended question about attitude toward other Observations All data collected during structured interviews (n=3).	OP: More socially active Improved mental affect YP: Improved social skills Better understanding of themselves and others Both: 70% of the older adults and all adolescents reported improved attitudes toward the other. 7 out of 12 therapeutic factors mastered.
Kessler and Staudinger (2007) 43	Germany	YP: n=90, aged 14–15. OP: n=90, aged 70–74. 100% F. Previous occupation, education.	OP recruited through newspaper articles describing life span research. YP recruited via Gymnasium school. University Behavioral Science Laboratory.	Quantitative, posttest experiment. Random assignment to one of three groups: experimental and 2 control groups. Participants worked in dyads and did not know each other. Experimental group: mixed generation, expert role assigned to OP (OP-LP). Control condition 1: mixed generation group, expert status assigned to YP (YP-MP). Control condition 2: same generation group. (OO-LP/YY-LP).	One 90-minute session, which included individual introduction to task, introduction to partner, warm-up, task completion, individual performance measurement, debrief. Expert role determined according to role in a collaborative task. A difficult life problem (LP) served to place OP in expert role and media problem (MP) placed YP in expert role.	Sociodemographic and psychological questionnaires completed at home after testing session to avoid stereotyping bias or interference. Exact study details not revealed before participation. YP: prosocial behavior measured via decision-making task communion goals measured via sentence completion OP: cognitive-affective complexity measured via reaction to text cognitive performance determined via speed, word fluency, and logical reasoning measures. Test instructions modified to minimize the threat of age stereotyping.	YP: sig more prosocial behavior in OY-LP than OY-MP condition sig fewer prosocial behaviors in YY-LP than OY-LP no sig differences in no of communal to agentic coding between OY-LP and OY-MP and between OY-LP and YY-LP OP: higher cognitive-affective complexity in OY-LP than OY-MP (approaching significance) sig higher complexity in OY-LP than OO-LP OP in experimental condition outperformed those in OY-MP on speed and word fluency but not in OO-LP condition. No diff between groups on logical reasoning Participants in experimental condition expressed higher generativity (OP) and identity formation (YP) than control.
Kranz et al. (2021) 44	Germany	Life Story Encounter Program (LSEP) group: YP: n=59 (86%F), aged 14–20 (M=16.69, SD=1.04). OP: n=62, aged 67–98 (M=83.42, SD=7.27). Control group: YP: n=345 (43%F), aged 14–19 (M=6.22 (reporting error?), SD= 0.86). OP: n=140 (70%F), aged 64–96 (M=84.79, SD=6.96). Educational level, cognitive impairment (OP only).	OP preselected by nursing home staff based on age and health. Participants first contacted at school (YP) or in nursing home (OP). Nursing homes for older adults.	Quantitative, quasi-experimental, longitudinal pre-post. Participants who showed initial interest in LSEP were invited to the program condition, which consisted of groups of ~ n=5 YP, n=5 OP and n=2 moderators. The remainder of the sample were nonrandomly assigned to the control condition.	Program group: YP had initial meeting to prepare for attending nursing home and engaging with OP. Then, n=10 weekly LSEP sessions in nursing homes, lasting roughly 90 minutes, which include welcome and introduction, icebreakers leading into group discussions on existential life questions based on biographical memories, and ending with a session review. Stereotype assessments completed by both groups at baseline (T1), post-program (T2) and at follow-up (T3). Control group: participants were included for comparison purposes with no program participation and completed assessments at the same T1 and T3 as LSEP participants.	Stereotype measures: Aging Semantic Differential (ASD) German translation, shortened version T1: Younger age version and older age version T2 and T3: only version with focus on other generation Comfort and learning: Level of IG comfort and learning experience measured on 5-point scales after each LSEP session	Baseline differences in age stereotyping: Younger age stereotype more favorable than older age stereotype. Advantage was larger among older adult group but statistically significant in both groups. This is only evident in older adult control group. Stereotype scoring of the other generation did not differ between YP or OP program or control groups.
							Program effects on cross-generational age stereotyping (CGAS): Post-program and follow-up CGAS scores were more positive for both generations in program group. Older adults consistently provided more positive stereotypes of YP than YP did of OP. CGAS remained stable across time points for the control group. More positive age stereotypes among program group participants than the control group.
							Comfort and learning: Both generations rated the LSEP very highly on both comfort and learning dimensions. Higher comfort than learning scores was reported and older adults reported more benefits than YP. Those who benefitted from IG learning showed more positive stereotypes of other generations following LSEP (T1-T2). This positive effect was only significant when comfort was low. Those who reported higher comfort showed more positive age stereotypes (T1-T3). This significant positive effect was only evident for YP.
							Additional control analyses: LSEP as a control variable did not impact scores. Inclusion of participants with low attendance also did not impact CGAS scores. Demographic variables, educational level, and cognitive ability were unrelated to stereotype scores.
Lai and Burchett (2021) 43	China	YP: n=25, school forms 3 and 4 (ages 14–16). OP: n=15, aged 57–69, fluent English-speaking retirees. No gender breakdown. OP previous occupations listed.	The English department at a band one (academically top tier) secondary school contacted the primary researcher to explore opportunities for students to practice English as a second language (ESL). Following collaborative program design, recruitment seminars were conducted for YFP (in school) and OP (via the Institute of Active Ageing at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University), consisting of promotional seminars, written invitations and distribution of recruitment materials. Secondary school classroom.	Mixed method, pre-post. Samples selected from the first to complete enrollment (YP) or agree to participate (OP). Participants organized into n=12 groups consisting of 1–2 OP and 2–4 YP. No control group.	Each group initially selected from a toolbox containing 52 activity cards and established related learning objectives. Activities were designed to be interactive and to promote collaborative goal-sharing. Game-based activities were also integrated into sessions. The program consisted of twelve weekly sessions lasting 2 hours each. OP positioned as ‘equal learning partners’ and therefore additionally participated in ongoing weekly one-hour workshops emphasizing theoretical issues, program-related issues and feedback.	Quantitative: Oral and written English skills: Before and after measures derived from the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSE) Program evaluation: 5-point Likert scales, specific to YP and OP Qualitative: Ethnographically inspired journals written by primary researcher, containing video recordings, photographs, and session observations. Open-ended survey questionnaires anonymously completed by participants	Program value – student participants: Average improvement of 18% in both English speaking and writing proficiency. Provision of valuable opportunities to develop ESL skills. Program value – enhancing the ESL learning environment: Feedback indicated a stimulating and educational program. Program value – mentor (OP) participants: Positive social and educational values, increased sense of IG connectedness and emotional balance. Program value – IG contacts: Educational and developmental benefits for both generations. Enhanced learning environment, facilitation of YP ESL learning activities, and OP personal development.
Leek and Rojek (2021) 42	Germany, Spain, Sweden, UK	YP: immigrant youth aged 12–16, who moved to Europe with family from mainly Syria and Afghanistan up to 3 years previously. OP: native citizens who had been living in the area for 10+ years, aged 62–73. Baseline: YP: n=95 (n=72F), OP: n=64 (n=49F). Endline: YP: n=63 (n=49F), OP: n=41 (n=35F). No additional information.	The research team visited schools to recruit YP and contacted day care centers to recruit OP. Participants selected from schools and day care centers in the same community to guarantee repeatability. Online setting.	Qualitative, collective case design. Maximum variation sampling of cases of IG digital tools courses run by immigrant YP for OP. Details of course activities not provided.	Digital courses developed and conducted by YP during which both generations used digital tools with internet connection, aiming to reduce digital exclusion of OP, limiting school dropout among YP, and support IG integration. The courses ran over twelve weekly meetings within one school semester, lasting 12–15 weeks.	Online questionnaires containing both open-ended and closed questions: Baseline focused on course expectations and working with the other generation Endline explored experiences during courses within the context of IG learning.	ICT as learning facilitator: Rapprochement between generations in attitudes to ICT. Digital tools facilitated mutual interaction and learning. ICT as tool for learning: Improved language and communication skills among YP via IG use of digital tools. Both generations reported mutual understanding and opportunities to learn about each other and share knowledge and skills. Opportunity for OP to offer YP “life wisdom” ICT as objects of learning: Reduction of IG distance and facilitation of IG cooperation.
Meshel and McGlynn (2004) 38	United States	YP: n=63 (n=34F), aged 11–13. 21 per group. OP: n=17 (n=12F), aged 75+ (n=8); 66–75 (n=7); and 60–65 (n=2). No additional information.	YP randomly selected from 6&7^th grade classes in same school. Voluntary participation. OP volunteers from senior citizen center located within same public middle school. Setting not specified.	Quantitative, pre-post experiment. YP random assignment to: Contact group (engaging in intimate and reciprocally enjoyable activities). Four triads (2YP:1OP) and 13 dyads (1YP:1OP) Didactic control group (measure role of increased knowledge of OP) Control group (no activity) All OP assigned to contact group.	1 hour per week for 6 consecutive weeks. Contact: Getting to know each other, story sharing, painting with music, IG lunch, all leading to a talent show, followed by debrief and posttest measures. Didactic: Educational knowledge and awareness of aging and OP, including sharing personal experiences, imagining themselves as older, collage making, aging simulation, discussions of myths and beliefs of aging, and of death and dying. Control: Watching unrelated education movies and free time playing games	YP: Pre-test: Demographic questionnaire Belief-elicitation Attitude measure Life satisfaction scale (SWLA); age adjusted Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) 1 day following pretest: Rate items generated during belief-elicitation OP: Pre-test: Demographic questionnaire Attitude measure SWLS. Post-test: Same measures for all groups, except demographic questionnaire. Activity evaluations Program rating regarding equal status	YP: Attitudes: Positive pre attitudes toward OP Positive attitude change in contact group (not significant) Significantly more negative attitudes posttest in control group No significant change in didactic Life satisfaction: High levels pre and post Stereotypes: Mostly positive pretest Significant change to more negative at posttest – same for all three groups – absence of significant interactions OP: Positive pre attitudes toward YP Significantly more positive attitudes toward YP posttest Sig more positive life satisfaction pre to posttest
Öberg (2007) 32	Sweden	YP: n=5 (n=4F), aged 16–21. OP: n=5 (n=3F), aged 66–85. No additional information.	Senior advisory groups, made up of retired individuals of all ages and associated with The Research Centre of Ageing, proposed the topic and project. No mention of how YP were recruited. Research Centre of Ageing and several community settings, including a bowling hall and local newspaper editorial office.	Qualitative, grounded theory. For five discussion circles, all participants were grouped together. One bowling activity saw them split into mixed-age groups to compete against each other.	Word association tasks and discussions around topics relating to attitudes, age, etc. commenced this project. Groups then met 5 further times to watch a film together, read a book, go bowling, see a play, and visit a local newspaper. During each meeting, they debated relevant topics in a discussion circle, as the purpose of the project was to lessen negative attitudes held by one generation toward the other.	Qualitative: all discussions recorded, and methods were informed by grounded theory. Detailed descriptions of observed group conversations and dynamics.	Main themes: Stereotypes: Negative stereotypes exist toward each generation Older adults associated with physical flaws, loneliness, knowledge, wisdom YP associated with disrespect and non-caring Grounds for solidarity Age/generation is only one of the many means through which people can experience solidarity Old and new ways of thinking. Through extended time spent together in discussion, stereotypes were able to be challenged and the social capital of each group increased. They identified that both groups are vulnerable within society.
Orte et al. (2018) 32	Spain, Poland and Turkey	YP: aged 11–12. OP: aged 65+ (Spain), 50+ (Poland and Turkey) Total numbers not provided for each country. Turkey, n=1 primary school; Spain n=3 primary schools (n=4 classes); Poland, n=1 extracurricular program. No gender breakdown. No additional information.	Schools recruited based on accessibility to the community and adoption of methodologies in line with IG work. Older adults with social skills and an interest in learning. Primary schools and an organization providing extracurricular activities.	Quantitative, pre-post program evaluation. One OP per 6–8 students, chosen to work together by class tutor. N=3–4 OP per group/class.	Sessions last roughly 70 minutes and follow the format of: opening activity; main activity; review activity; proposal of activity for next session; and (self) assessment.	Pre/post survey: Initial: Standard survey assessing IG relationships (perceptions, attitudes) Satisfaction survey (professors, seniors, and students) Final: IG survey Satisfaction survey (YP and OP) Final discussion groups (senior students and tutors) During: Questionnaires were completed by students, seniors, professors, and external observers following each session. N=168 per school (Spain: n=672).	Pre/post: OP: Significant changes regarding interpersonal relations between OP and YP YP: Improved satisfaction posttest with relations with grandparents and other older adults (non-significant) Program feedback: YP & OP both improved self-confidence and desire to learn Group work diminished perceptions of differences between groups Students appreciated being at the center of their own learning process Initial training helped OP overcome fear of entering the classroom
							Feedback reported during discussion groups: Benefits for teaching staff, including improved language and digital skills, new intercultural knowledge, and experience of and skill development in managing educational projects. Benefits for university students: Facilitation of networking, cooperation, and development of new professional relationships.
Portman et al. (2010) 41	United States	YP: n=7 (100%F), aged 13–15. OP: n=5 (100%F), aged 62–80. Family situation, living arrangement, economic status, education.	Purposive sampling used to recruit participants who would be keen to share their stories. YP recruited via churches, school counselors, and author personal contacts. OP recruited via religious institutions, retirement community, and housing neighborhood. Mountaintop lodge.	Qualitative, grounded theory. All participants stayed at a mountaintop retreat together for one weekend. Some structured group activities, but mostly open interactions.	Overall data collection lasted 3 months, including a 2-day retreat. Retreat lasted one weekend (Friday-Sunday) and followed a schedule, i.e., story time (60-90mins), discussing topics relating to female development; icebreakers; working in small groups to process the retreat; further discussion in larger group; watching movies; lectures; activities such as yoga, dance, skill sharing; and unstructured time.	Three in-depth interviews (the third interview took place 6 weeks after the retreat), video recordings, case notes, and reflection journals (collected at the same time as the second interview). Inductive analysis used to code and analyze data from transcriptions and recordings.	YP: Respected and listened to OP Challenged stereotypes Common experience with diverse women their age Increased self-confidence, comfort with self, openness with others, and risk taking Less judgmental toward others who are different OP: Pride, hope, risk taking, and rejuvenation Both: Unique atmosphere of single-gendered experience. Felt free to express themselves Open environment enhanced by participants not being family members

Yalom, I. D. (1985). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (3^rd ed.) Basic Books.

Table

Sample
Overall size	<20: n=3	(Jones et al., 2004; Öberg, 2007; Portman et al., 2010)
	20–50: n=3	(DeMichelis et al., 2015; Dipardo & Schnack, 2004; Lai & Burchett, 2021)
	50–100: n=2	(Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Meshel & McGlynn, 2004)
	>100: n=5	(DeSouza, 2007; Kessler & Staudinger, 2007; Kranz et al., 2021; Leek & Rojek, 2021; Orte et al., 2018)
Gender	Majority female: n=7	(DeSouza, 2007; Dipardo & Schnack, 2004; Jones et al., 2004; Kranz et al., 2021; Leek & Rojek, 2021; Meshel & McGlynn, 2004; Öberg, 2007)
	Exclusively female: n=2	(Kessler & Staudinger, 2007; Portman et al., 2010)
	Incomplete or missing data: n=4	(DeMichelis et al., 2015; Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Lai & Burchett, 2021; Orte et al., 2018)
Methodology	Qualitative: n=6	(DeSouza, 2007; Dipardo & Schnack, 2004; Jones et al., 2004; Leek & Rojek, 2021; Öberg, 2007; Portman et al., 2010)
	Quantitative: n=3	(Kessler & Staudinger, 2007; Kranz et al., 2021; Meshel & McGlynn, 2004)
	Mixed method: n=4	(DeMichelis et al., 2015; Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Lai & Burchett, 2021; Orte et al., 2018)
Design	Qualitative:
	Grounded theory: n=3	(DeSouza, 2007; Öberg, 2007; Portman et al., 2010)
	Phenomenology: n=1	(Dipardo & Schnack, 2004)
	Descriptive: n=1	(Jones et al., 2004)
	Collective case design: n=1	(Leek & Rojek, 2021)
	Quantitative:
	Quasi-experimental pre-post: n=1	(Kranz et al., 2021)
	Experimental pre-post: n=1	(Meshel & McGlynn, 2004)
	Experimental post-only: n=1	(Kessler & Staudinger, 2007)
	Mixed method:
	Pre-post: n=4	(DeMichelis et al., 2015; Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Lai & Burchett, 2021; Orte et al., 2018)
Data Collection Measures
Qualitative studies	Focus groups: n=1	(DeSouza, 2007)
	Joint interviews: n=3	(Dipardo & Schnack, 2004; Jones et al., 2004; Portman et al., 2010)
	Observations: n=1	(Jones et al., 2004)
	Journals: n=2	(Dipardo & Schnack, 2004; Portman et al., 2010)
	Video recordings: n=1	(Portman et al., 2010)
	Audio recordings: n=1	(Öberg, 2007)
	Discussion groups: n=1	(Öberg, 2007)
	Field notes: n=1	(Dipardo & Schnack, 2004)
	Case notes: n=1	(Portman et al., 2010)
	Author-generated scales: n=2	(Jones et al., 2004; Leek & Rojek, 2021)
	Adapted scales: n=1	(Jones et al., 2004)
Quantitative studies	Validated scales: n=2	(Kessler & Staudinger, 2007; Meshel & McGlynn, 2004)
	Adapted scales: n=2	(Kranz et al., 2021; Meshel & McGlynn, 2004)
	Author-generated scales: n=2	(Kranz et al., 2021; Meshel & McGlynn, 2004)
	Experimental behavior and cognitive tests: n=1	(Kessler & Staudinger, 2007)
	Activity evaluations: n=1	(Meshel & McGlynn, 2004)
Mixed method studies	Qualitative measures:
	Unstructured interviews: n=1	(Gamliel & Gabay, 2014)
	Discussion groups: n=1	(Orte et al., 2018)
	Observations: n=2	(Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Lai & Burchett, 2021)
	Surveys: n=1	(Orte et al., 2018)
	Open-ended survey questionnaires: n=1	(Lai & Burchett, 2021)
	Video recordings: n=1	(Lai & Burchett, 2021)
	Photographs: n=1	(Lai & Burchett, 2021)
	Website content monitoring: n=1	(Gamliel & Gabay, 2014)
	Event logging: n=1	(Gamliel & Gabay, 2014)
	Reflections: n=1	(DeMichelis et al., 2015)
	Assignments: n=1	(DeMichelis et al., 2015)
	Quantitative measures:
	Author-generated scales: n=3	(Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Lai & Burchett, 2021; Orte et al., 2018)
	Validated scales: n=2	(DeMichelis et al., 2015; Gamliel & Gabay, 2014)
	Adapted scales: n=2	(Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Lai & Burchett, 2021)
Data Collection Period	Single session: n=1
	90 minutes	(Kessler & Staudinger, 2007)
	Multiple sessions: n=9
	3 weeks	(DeMichelis et al., 2015)
	6 weeks	(Meshel & McGlynn, 2004)
	10 weeks	(Kranz et al., 2021)
	12 weeks	(Lai & Burchett, 2021)
	12–15 weeks	(Leek & Rojek, 2021)
	3 months	(Portman et al., 2010)
	5 months	(DeSouza, 2007)
	11 months	(Jones et al., 2004)
	One year	(Dipardo & Schnack, 2004)
	Ongoing, undefined or missing data: n=3	(Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Öberg, 2007; Orte et al., 2018)
Primary Outcomes	Psychosocial changes: n=6	(DeMichelis et al., 2015; Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Kessler & Staudinger, 2007; Meshel & McGlynn, 2004; Orte et al., 2018; Portman et al., 2010)
	Relationship building: n=6	(Dipardo & Schnack, 2004; Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Jones et al., 2004; Öberg, 2007; Orte et al., 2018; Portman et al., 2010)
	Learning/mentoring opportunities: n=6	(DeMichelis et al., 2015; Dipardo & Schnack, 2004; Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Lai & Burchett, 2021; Leek & Rojek, 2021; Orte et al., 2018)
	Attitude change: n=5	(DeSouza, 2007; Jones et al., 2004; Meshel & McGlynn, 2004; Öberg, 2007; Orte et al., 2018)
	Program feedback: n=4	(Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; Lai & Burchett, 2021; Leek & Rojek, 2021; Orte et al., 2018)
	Improved social behavior/interactions: n=3	(Jones et al., 2004; Kessler & Staudinger, 2007; Öberg, 2007)
	Intergenerational engagement: n=2	(Lai & Burchett, 2021; Leek & Rojek, 2021)
	Age stereotype change: n=1	(Kranz et al., 2021)
	Cognitive improvements: n=1	(Kessler & Staudinger, 2007)
	Active engagement in society: n=1	(Lai & Burchett, 2021)

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., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S. … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DeMichelis, C., Ferrari, M., Rozin, T., & Stern, B. (2015). Teaching for wisdom in an intergenerational high-school-English class. Educational Gerontology, 41(8), 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2014.994355

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DeSouza, E. (2007). Intergenerational interaction through reminiscence processes. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 5(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1300/J194v05n01_04

 Google Scholar

Dipardo, A., & Schnack, P. (2004). Expanding the web of meaning: Thought and emotion in an intergenerational reading and writing program. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.1.3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gamliel, T., & Gabay, N. (2014). Knowledge exchange, social interactions, and empowerment in an intergenerational technology program at school. Educational Gerontology, 40(8), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2013.863097

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jones, E. D., Herrick, C., & York, R. F. (2004). An intergenerational group benefits both emotionally disturbed youth and older adults. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 25(8), 753–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840490506329

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Kessler, E. M., & Staudinger, U. M. (2007). Intergenerational potential: Effects of social interaction between older adults and adolescents. Psychology and Aging, 22(4), 690–704. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.690

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kranz, D., Thomas, N. M., & Hofer, J. (2021). Changes in age stereotypes in adolescent and older participants of an intergenerational encounter program. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.658797

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lai, A., & Burchett, R. (2021). Involving retired citizens in ESL education: Case study of a secondary school program. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 19(2), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2020.1739588

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leek, J., & Rojek, M. (2021). ICT tools in breaking down social polarization and supporting intergenerational learning: Cases of youth and senior citizens. Interactive Learning Environments, 31, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1940214

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meshel, D. S., & McGlynn, R. P. (2004). Intergenerational contact, attitudes, and stereotypes of adolescents and older people. Educational Gerontology, 30(6), 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270490445078

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Öberg, B. M. (2007). Meeting the other: A way of fighting age discrimination? A discussion circle with young and old participants in Sweden. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 5(2), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J194v05n02_03

 Google Scholar

Orte, C., Vives, M., Amer, J., Ballester, L., Pascual, B., Gomila, M. A., & Pozo, R. (2018). Sharing intergenerational relationships in educational contexts: The experience of an international program in three countries (Spain, Poland and Turkey). Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 16(1–2), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2018.1404414

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Portman, T. A. A., Bartlett, J. R., & Carlson, L. A. (2010). Relational theory and intergenerational connectedness: A qualitative study. Adultspan Journal, 9(2), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0029.2010.tb00074.x

 Google Scholar