Physical disease and resilient outcomes: a systematic review of resilience definitions and study methods

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background
Findings from physical disease resilience research may be used to develop approaches to reduce the burden of disease. However, there is no consensus as to the definition and measurement of resilience in the context of physical disease.
Objective
The aim was to summarise the range of definitions of physical disease resilience and the approaches taken to study it in studies examining physical disease and its relationship to resilient outcomes.
Methods
Electronic databases were searched from database inception to March 2013 for studies in which physical disease was assessed for its association with resilient outcomes. Article screening, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Results were combined using a narrative technique.
Results
Of 2280 articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria. One study was high quality, nine studies were moderate quality and two were low quality. Common findings were that resilience involves maintaining healthy levels of functioning following adversity and is a dynamic process not a personality trait. Studies either assessed resilience based upon observed outcomes or via resilience measurement scales. Studies either considered physical disease as an adversity leading to resilience or as a variable modifying the relationship between adversity and resilience.
Conclusion
This work begins building consensus as to the approach to take in defining and measuring physical disease resilience. Resilience should be considered as a dynamic process which varies across the life-course and across different domains, therefore the choice of resilience measure should reflect this.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)168-180
Number of pages13
JournalPsychosomatics
Volume56
Issue number2
Early online date8 Oct 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2015

Fingerprint

Consensus
Databases
Systematic Review
Resilience
Physical
Personality
Research
Data Base
Reviewers
Data Accuracy
Burden
Inclusion
Life Course
Personality Traits
Screening
Narrative Technique
Quality Assessment

Keywords

  • self-rated health
  • psychological resilience
  • psychobiology
  • resources
  • survivors
  • stress
  • people
  • cancer
  • older
  • resilience
  • research
  • chronic illness

Cite this

@article{50caa89112c7420994a9874484434c53,
title = "Physical disease and resilient outcomes: a systematic review of resilience definitions and study methods",
abstract = "BackgroundFindings from physical disease resilience research may be used to develop approaches to reduce the burden of disease. However, there is no consensus as to the definition and measurement of resilience in the context of physical disease. ObjectiveThe aim was to summarise the range of definitions of physical disease resilience and the approaches taken to study it in studies examining physical disease and its relationship to resilient outcomes.MethodsElectronic databases were searched from database inception to March 2013 for studies in which physical disease was assessed for its association with resilient outcomes. Article screening, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Results were combined using a narrative technique.ResultsOf 2280 articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria. One study was high quality, nine studies were moderate quality and two were low quality. Common findings were that resilience involves maintaining healthy levels of functioning following adversity and is a dynamic process not a personality trait. Studies either assessed resilience based upon observed outcomes or via resilience measurement scales. Studies either considered physical disease as an adversity leading to resilience or as a variable modifying the relationship between adversity and resilience.ConclusionThis work begins building consensus as to the approach to take in defining and measuring physical disease resilience. Resilience should be considered as a dynamic process which varies across the life-course and across different domains, therefore the choice of resilience measure should reflect this.",
keywords = "self-rated health, psychological resilience, psychobiology, resources, survivors, stress , people, cancer, older, resilience , research , chronic illness",
author = "Johnston, {Marjorie C} and Terry Porteous and Crilly, {Michael A} and Burton, {Christopher D} and Alison Elliott and Lisa Iversen and Karen McArdle and Alison Murray and Phillips, {Louise H} and Corri Black",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2015 The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements Dr. Marjorie C. Johnston is funded by a Clinical Academic Fellowship from the Chief Scientist Office, Scotland, UK (CAF/13/03) and is also supported by the Farr Institute @ Scotland. The protocol development and screening of titles and abstracts occurred while Dr. Johnston was an employee of NHS Grampian. Dr. Terry Porteous was funded by a Grant from the University of Aberdeen, UK, Pathways to a Healthy Life theme.",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.psym.2014.10.005",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "168--180",
journal = "Psychosomatics",
issn = "0033-3182",
publisher = "American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Physical disease and resilient outcomes

T2 - a systematic review of resilience definitions and study methods

AU - Johnston, Marjorie C

AU - Porteous, Terry

AU - Crilly, Michael A

AU - Burton, Christopher D

AU - Elliott, Alison

AU - Iversen, Lisa

AU - McArdle, Karen

AU - Murray, Alison

AU - Phillips, Louise H

AU - Black, Corri

N1 - Copyright © 2015 The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements Dr. Marjorie C. Johnston is funded by a Clinical Academic Fellowship from the Chief Scientist Office, Scotland, UK (CAF/13/03) and is also supported by the Farr Institute @ Scotland. The protocol development and screening of titles and abstracts occurred while Dr. Johnston was an employee of NHS Grampian. Dr. Terry Porteous was funded by a Grant from the University of Aberdeen, UK, Pathways to a Healthy Life theme.

PY - 2015/3

Y1 - 2015/3

N2 - BackgroundFindings from physical disease resilience research may be used to develop approaches to reduce the burden of disease. However, there is no consensus as to the definition and measurement of resilience in the context of physical disease. ObjectiveThe aim was to summarise the range of definitions of physical disease resilience and the approaches taken to study it in studies examining physical disease and its relationship to resilient outcomes.MethodsElectronic databases were searched from database inception to March 2013 for studies in which physical disease was assessed for its association with resilient outcomes. Article screening, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Results were combined using a narrative technique.ResultsOf 2280 articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria. One study was high quality, nine studies were moderate quality and two were low quality. Common findings were that resilience involves maintaining healthy levels of functioning following adversity and is a dynamic process not a personality trait. Studies either assessed resilience based upon observed outcomes or via resilience measurement scales. Studies either considered physical disease as an adversity leading to resilience or as a variable modifying the relationship between adversity and resilience.ConclusionThis work begins building consensus as to the approach to take in defining and measuring physical disease resilience. Resilience should be considered as a dynamic process which varies across the life-course and across different domains, therefore the choice of resilience measure should reflect this.

AB - BackgroundFindings from physical disease resilience research may be used to develop approaches to reduce the burden of disease. However, there is no consensus as to the definition and measurement of resilience in the context of physical disease. ObjectiveThe aim was to summarise the range of definitions of physical disease resilience and the approaches taken to study it in studies examining physical disease and its relationship to resilient outcomes.MethodsElectronic databases were searched from database inception to March 2013 for studies in which physical disease was assessed for its association with resilient outcomes. Article screening, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Results were combined using a narrative technique.ResultsOf 2280 articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria. One study was high quality, nine studies were moderate quality and two were low quality. Common findings were that resilience involves maintaining healthy levels of functioning following adversity and is a dynamic process not a personality trait. Studies either assessed resilience based upon observed outcomes or via resilience measurement scales. Studies either considered physical disease as an adversity leading to resilience or as a variable modifying the relationship between adversity and resilience.ConclusionThis work begins building consensus as to the approach to take in defining and measuring physical disease resilience. Resilience should be considered as a dynamic process which varies across the life-course and across different domains, therefore the choice of resilience measure should reflect this.

KW - self-rated health

KW - psychological resilience

KW - psychobiology

KW - resources

KW - survivors

KW - stress

KW - people

KW - cancer

KW - older

KW - resilience

KW - research

KW - chronic illness

U2 - 10.1016/j.psym.2014.10.005

DO - 10.1016/j.psym.2014.10.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 25620566

VL - 56

SP - 168

EP - 180

JO - Psychosomatics

JF - Psychosomatics

SN - 0033-3182

IS - 2

ER -