Department of Psychology, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada.
Department of Psychology, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada.
Clin Psychol Rev. 2020 Dec;82:101919. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101919. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: There is no current consensus on operational definitions of resilience. Instead, researchers often debate the optimal approach to understanding resilience, while continuing to explore ways to enhance and/or promote its qualities in various populations. The goal of the current meta-analysis is to substantiate existing evidence examining the promotion of resilience through various interventions. Particular emphasis was placed upon the factors that contribute to variability across interventions, such as age, gender, duration of intervention, intervention approaches and risk exposure of targeted population.
The literature search was conducted on May 28, 2019. Search terms included "resilience intervention" OR "promoting resilience" OR "promoting resiliency" OR "resilience-based intervention". A total of 268 studies, with 1584 independent samples, were included in the meta-analysis. In addition to overall efficacy, outcome-based analyses were conducted for intervention outcomes based on action, biophysical, coping, emotion, resilience, symptoms, and well-being. Finally, moderators of age, gender, length of intervention, intervention approach, intervention target, and the level of risk exposure of the sampled population were examined as moderators.
The multi-level meta-analysis indicated that resilience-promoting interventions yielded a small, but statistically significant overall effect, Hedges's g = 0.48 (SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.40, 0.56]. The variability in study effect sizes within and between studies was significant, p < .001, with many falling short of the threshold for practical significance.
Findings lend some support for the overall efficacy of resilience interventions. However, empirical results should be cautiously interpreted in tandem with their theoretical relevance and potential advancements to the construct of resilience. Variabilities across findings reflect the current ambiguities surrounding the conceptualization and operationalization of resilience. Directions for future research on resilience as well as practical considerations are discussed.
背景/基本原理：目前对于韧性的操作性定义尚未达成共识。相反，研究人员经常争论理解韧性的最佳方法，同时继续探索在不同人群中增强和/或促进其品质的方法。本研究的目的是为通过各种干预措施促进韧性的现有证据提供依据。特别强调了导致干预措施之间存在差异的因素，例如年龄、性别、干预持续时间、干预方法和目标人群的风险暴露。
文献检索于 2019 年 5 月 28 日进行。检索词包括“韧性干预”或“促进韧性”或“促进韧性”或“基于韧性的干预”。共有 268 项研究，包含 1584 个独立样本，被纳入荟萃分析。除了整体疗效外，还根据行动、生物物理、应对、情绪、韧性、症状和幸福感对干预结果进行了基于结果的分析。最后，检查了年龄、性别、干预持续时间、干预方法、干预目标以及样本人群风险暴露水平等因素的调节作用。
多层次荟萃分析表明，促进韧性的干预措施产生了适度但具有统计学意义的总体效果，Hedges's g=0.48（SE=0.04，95%CI=[0.40，0.56]）。研究内和研究间的研究效果大小的变异性显著，p<0.001，许多研究效果都低于实际意义的阈值。
研究结果在一定程度上支持了韧性干预的总体效果。然而，实证结果应与理论相关性及其对韧性概念和操作性定义的潜在发展谨慎地结合起来进行解释。研究结果的变异性反映了当前对韧性的概念化和操作性定义的模糊性。讨论了韧性研究的未来方向以及实际考虑因素。
