ArticlePloS one2026
Willingness, motivators and barriers to time bank participation: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review systematically identifies the extent and nature of evidence regarding willingness, motivators, and barriers influencing community participation in time bank systems, with a focus on older adults. Time bank is recognized as an effective tool for enhancing social cohesion and reducing isolation, particularly among older adults. However, specific factors such as barriers and motivators driving participation remain underexplored. This review adhered to Arksey and O'Malley's framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Science Direct (January 2010-December 2024) identified studies on willingness, motivators, and barriers to time bank participation. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, extracting data using a predefined tool. Thirty studies (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods) were included. Findings revealed high willingness among younger populations, particularly university students, driven by intrinsic motivations like altruism and meaningful engagement. Healthcare professionals and older adults showed moderate willingness, influenced by health needs and caregiving roles. Key motivators included robust willingness to participate across different population, social and community influences, demographic and structural determinants, institutional and organizational support. Barriers included psychological and perceptual barriers, structural and systemic barriers, technological and usability, social and community, economic and policy-related barriers. Time bank holds significant potential for fostering community engagement, but challenges such as usability and trust must be addressed. Tailored strategies, improved platform design, and supportive policies are essential to maximize participation. Future research should address identified gaps to develop inclusive, scalable, and sustainable time bank systems that meet diverse community needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.