The relations between resilience and self-efficacy among healthcare practitioners in context of the COVID-19 pandemic – a rapid review

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

Purpose

The purpose of this rapid review was to present current evidence on relations between resilience and self-efficacy among healthcare practitioners in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

Design/methodology/approach

Literature searches were conducted in February/2022 in the online database MEDLINE EBSCO and not date/time limited. Eligibility criteria were as follows: population – healthcare practitioners, interest – relations between resilience and self-efficacy and context – COVID-19.

Findings

Six eligible studies from Italy, China, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan and Spain, published between 2020 and 2021 were included in the review. All studies used quantitative methods. The relations between resilience and self-efficacy were identified in contexts of resilience programs, measuring mental health of frontline nurses, measuring nurses' and nursing students' perception of psychological preparedness for pandemic management, perception of COVID-19 severity and mediating roles of self-efficacy and resilience between stress and both physical and mental quality of life. Findings indicated limited research on this topic and a need for more research.

Practical implications

Broader understanding of the relations between resilience and self-efficacy may help healthcare organizations' leaders/managers aiming to support resilience of their employers under challenging circumstances such as future pandemic.

Originality/value

The latest COVID-19 pandemic presented the opportunity to research relations between resilience and self-efficacy and enrich existed research in a new and extraordinary context.

Related collections

Most cited references 42

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2025)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 15209 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Albert Bandura (1977)

0 comments Cited 3377 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC).

Kathryn M Connor, Jonathan Davidson (2003)

Resilience may be viewed as a measure of stress coping ability and, as such, could be an important target of treatment in anxiety, depression, and stress reactions. We describe a new rating scale to assess resilience. The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC) comprises of 25 items, each rated on a 5-point scale (0-4), with higher scores reflecting greater resilience. The scale was administered to subjects in the following groups: community sample, primary care outpatients, general psychiatric outpatients, clinical trial of generalized anxiety disorder, and two clinical trials of PTSD. The reliability, validity, and factor analytic structure of the scale were evaluated, and reference scores for study samples were calculated. Sensitivity to treatment effects was examined in subjects from the PTSD clinical trials. The scale demonstrated good psychometric properties and factor analysis yielded five factors. A repeated measures ANOVA showed that an increase in CD-RISC score was associated with greater improvement during treatment. Improvement in CD-RISC score was noted in proportion to overall clinical global improvement, with greatest increase noted in subjects with the highest global improvement and deterioration in CD-RISC score in those with minimal or no global improvement. The CD-RISC has sound psychometric properties and distinguishes between those with greater and lesser resilience. The scale demonstrates that resilience is modifiable and can improve with treatment, with greater improvement corresponding to higher levels of global improvement. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.