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

Marjorie C Johnston, Terry Porteous, Michael A Crilly, Christopher D Burton, Alison Elliott, Lisa Iversen, Karen McArdle, Alison Murray, Louise H Phillips, Corri Black

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

18 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 on the definition and measurement of resilience in the context of physical disease.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to summarize 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 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 2 reviewers, with disagreements being resolved by a third reviewer. The results were combined using a narrative technique.

RESULTS: Of 2280 articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 1 was of high quality, 9 were of moderate quality, and 2 were low quality. The common findings were that resilience involves maintaining healthy levels of functioning following adversity and that it is a dynamic process not a personality trait. Studies either assessed resilience based on observed outcomes or via resilience measurement scales. They 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 when defining and measuring physical disease resilience. Resilience should be considered as a dynamic process that varies across the life-course and across different domains, therefore the choice of a resilience measure should reflect this.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)168-80
Number of pages13
JournalPsychosomatics
Volume56
Issue number2
Early online date8 Oct 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Jan 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

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

Cite this

Johnston, Marjorie C ; Porteous, Terry ; Crilly, Michael A ; Burton, Christopher D ; Elliott, Alison ; Iversen, Lisa ; McArdle, Karen ; Murray, Alison ; Phillips, Louise H ; Black, Corri. / Physical disease and resilient outcomes : a systematic review of resilience definitions and study methods. In: Psychosomatics. 2015 ; Vol. 56, No. 2. pp. 168-80.
@article{f6a9b85bd06443d18cdbbcc303fc64af,
title = "Physical disease and resilient outcomes: a systematic review of resilience definitions and study methods",
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 on the definition and measurement of resilience in the context of physical disease.OBJECTIVE: The aim was to summarize 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 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 2 reviewers, with disagreements being resolved by a third reviewer. The results were combined using a narrative technique.RESULTS: Of 2280 articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 1 was of high quality, 9 were of moderate quality, and 2 were low quality. The common findings were that resilience involves maintaining healthy levels of functioning following adversity and that it is a dynamic process not a personality trait. Studies either assessed resilience based on observed outcomes or via resilience measurement scales. They 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 when defining and measuring physical disease resilience. Resilience should be considered as a dynamic process that varies across the life-course and across different domains, therefore the choice of a resilience measure should reflect this.",
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.",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1016/j.psym.2014.10.005",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "168--80",
journal = "Psychosomatics",
issn = "0033-3182",
publisher = "American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.",
number = "2",

}

Johnston, MC, Porteous, T, Crilly, MA, Burton, CD, Elliott, A, Iversen, L, McArdle, K, Murray, A, Phillips, LH & Black, C 2015, 'Physical disease and resilient outcomes: a systematic review of resilience definitions and study methods', Psychosomatics, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 168-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psym.2014.10.005

Physical disease and resilient outcomes : a systematic review of resilience definitions and study methods. / Johnston, Marjorie C; Porteous, Terry; Crilly, Michael A; Burton, Christopher D; Elliott, Alison; Iversen, Lisa; McArdle, Karen; Murray, Alison; Phillips, Louise H; Black, Corri.

In: Psychosomatics, Vol. 56, No. 2, 27.01.2015, p. 168-80.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

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.

PY - 2015/1/27

Y1 - 2015/1/27

N2 - BACKGROUND: Findings from physical disease resilience research may be used to develop approaches to reduce the burden of disease. However, there is no consensus on the definition and measurement of resilience in the context of physical disease.OBJECTIVE: The aim was to summarize 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 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 2 reviewers, with disagreements being resolved by a third reviewer. The results were combined using a narrative technique.RESULTS: Of 2280 articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 1 was of high quality, 9 were of moderate quality, and 2 were low quality. The common findings were that resilience involves maintaining healthy levels of functioning following adversity and that it is a dynamic process not a personality trait. Studies either assessed resilience based on observed outcomes or via resilience measurement scales. They 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 when defining and measuring physical disease resilience. Resilience should be considered as a dynamic process that varies across the life-course and across different domains, therefore the choice of a resilience measure should reflect this.

AB - BACKGROUND: Findings from physical disease resilience research may be used to develop approaches to reduce the burden of disease. However, there is no consensus on the definition and measurement of resilience in the context of physical disease.OBJECTIVE: The aim was to summarize 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 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 2 reviewers, with disagreements being resolved by a third reviewer. The results were combined using a narrative technique.RESULTS: Of 2280 articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 1 was of high quality, 9 were of moderate quality, and 2 were low quality. The common findings were that resilience involves maintaining healthy levels of functioning following adversity and that it is a dynamic process not a personality trait. Studies either assessed resilience based on observed outcomes or via resilience measurement scales. They 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 when defining and measuring physical disease resilience. Resilience should be considered as a dynamic process that varies across the life-course and across different domains, therefore the choice of a resilience measure should reflect this.

U2 - 10.1016/j.psym.2014.10.005

DO - 10.1016/j.psym.2014.10.005

M3 - Review article

C2 - 25620566

VL - 56

SP - 168

EP - 180

JO - Psychosomatics

JF - Psychosomatics

SN - 0033-3182

IS - 2

ER -