13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Systematic Review and Correlational Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated With Resilience of Normally Aging, Community-Living Older Adults

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and Objectives

          Global policy emphasizes the need to promote healthy aging through supporting inclusivity, safety, and functional independence. Research indicates that efforts to enhance resilience can contribute to meeting these objectives. We employed a meta-analytical approach to examine evidence on resilience in community-living older adults.

          Research Design and Methods

          We searched electronic databases until January 13, 2020 for observational studies investigating factors associated with resilience in this population. Articles had to provide quantitative data based on standardized assessment and include samples where mean participants’ age and lower 95% confidence interval were more than 55 years. We included 49 studies reported in 43 articles and completed 38 independent meta-analyses, 27 for personal and 11 for contextual factors associated with resilience.

          Results

          A range of personal and contextual factors were significantly associated with resilience, with effects sizes predominantly small to moderate (0.1 < r < 0.49). Factors reflecting psychological and physical well-being and access to/quality of social support were associated with higher resilience. Factors indicative of poorer psychological well-being and social challenges were associated with lower resilience. Longitudinal evidence was limited. The level of between-study heterogeneity was substantial to considerable. Where relevant analysis was possible, the identified publication bias was also considerable.

          Discussion and Implications

          The quality of the available evidence, as well as issues related to measurement of resilience, indicates the need for further work relative to its conceptualization and assessment. The presented findings have important clinical implications, particularly within the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 impact on resilience in older adults.

          Related collections

          Most cited references89

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back.

            While resilience has been defined as resistance to illness, adaptation, and thriving, the ability to bounce back or recover from stress is closest to its original meaning. Previous resilience measures assess resources that may promote resilience rather than recovery, resistance, adaptation, or thriving. To test a new brief resilience scale. The brief resilience scale (BRS) was created to assess the ability to bounce back or recover from stress. Its psychometric characteristics were examined in four samples, including two student samples and samples with cardiac and chronic pain patients. The BRS was reliable and measured as a unitary construct. It was predictably related to personal characteristics, social relations, coping, and health in all samples. It was negatively related to anxiety, depression, negative affect, and physical symptoms when other resilience measures and optimism, social support, and Type D personality (high negative affect and high social inhibition) were controlled. There were large differences in BRS scores between cardiac patients with and without Type D and women with and without fibromyalgia. The BRS is a reliable means of assessing resilience as the ability to bounce back or recover from stress and may provide unique and important information about people coping with health-related stressors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Introduction to Meta-Analysis

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Decision Editor
                Journal
                Gerontologist
                Gerontologist
                geront
                The Gerontologist
                Oxford University Press (US )
                0016-9013
                1758-5341
                November 2022
                04 August 2021
                04 August 2021
                : 62
                : 9
                : e520-e533
                Affiliations
                School of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University , Musselburgh, UK
                School of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University , Musselburgh, UK
                School of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University , Musselburgh, UK
                Edinburgh Health and Social Care Partnership, NHS Lothian , UK
                Edinburgh Health and Social Care Partnership, NHS Lothian , UK
                School of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University , Musselburgh, UK
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to: Sylwia Górska, PhD, School of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Queen Margaret Drive, Musselburgh EH21 6UU, UK. E-mail: SGorska@ 123456qmu.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6947-3362
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5483-8832
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1090-2767
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9599-8015
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6964-8508
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6732-1699
                Article
                gnab110
                10.1093/geront/gnab110
                9579466
                34346489
                afb7f6b6-0504-4108-8cbe-1dac1089fb3d
                © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 January 2021
                : 19 July 2021
                : 22 September 2021
                Page count
                Pages: 14
                Funding
                Funded by: National Health Service;
                Funded by: Lothian and Queen Margaret University Edinburgh;
                Categories
                Review Articles
                AcademicSubjects/SOC02600

                Geriatric medicine
                analysis—meta-analysis,analysis—systematic review,contextual factors,measurement,personal factors

                Comments

                Comment on this article