Department of Psychiatry.
Department of Psychology.
Psychol Serv. 2022;19(Suppl 1):120-138. doi: 10.1037/ser0000585. Epub 2022 Mar 14.
Resilience research has documented the ability to cope with traumatic and stressful situations and/or retain functioning given certain risk factors in the context of psychosis. In this study, we conducted the first systematic review of the literature on psychosis-like experiences (PLEs) and resilience. Fifteen articles (from 11 unique study samples) from 10 countries were included in this systematic review, with a total of 11,937 unique study participants. Inclusion criteria were broad, capturing a wide range of individuals with PLEs who have not yet experienced threshold psychosis, such as individuals in the general population with elevated self-reports of PLEs, as well as clinical groups diagnosed by clinician interviews (i.e., clinical- or ultra-high-risk for psychosis [CHR or UHR]). For this review, studies needed to include research aims and empirical research related to resilience, and use an established or author-defined measure of psychological and/or social resilience. Data reporting quality was assessed with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital (PROGRESS) guidelines. Study aims and measurement of key variables varied widely, and all studies were cross-sectional. In 73% of the studies, resilience was inversely associated with PLEs or psychosis risk status (e.g., CHR or UHR). Results related to specific resilience subscales were mixed. Author-defined resilience was typically related to internal/psychological resources. Future research, particularly longitudinal research involving multidimensional measurement of resilience (e.g., internal and external factors), along with well-defined theoretical models, are necessary before drawing firm conclusions on resilience and PLEs. We propose a dynamic, multifaceted, developmentally appropriate, and culturally sensitive model of resilience for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
韧性研究记录了在精神病学背景下，个体在面临创伤和压力情境时或在存在某些风险因素的情况下保持功能的应对能力。在这项研究中，我们对精神病样体验（PLEs）和韧性的文献进行了首次系统综述。这项系统综述纳入了来自 10 个国家的 15 篇文章（来自 11 个独特的研究样本），共有 11937 名独特的研究参与者。纳入标准很宽泛，涵盖了广泛的具有 PLEs 但尚未经历阈下精神病的个体，例如一般人群中自我报告的 PLEs 较高的个体，以及由临床医生访谈诊断的临床或超高风险精神病（CHR 或 UHR）的临床群体。在本综述中，研究需要包括与韧性相关的研究目的和实证研究，并使用已建立的或作者定义的心理和/或社会韧性测量方法。研究目的和关键变量的测量差异很大，所有研究均为横断面研究。在 73%的研究中，韧性与 PLEs 或精神病风险状态呈负相关（例如，CHR 或 UHR）。与特定韧性子量表相关的结果不一致。作者定义的韧性通常与内在/心理资源相关。在得出关于韧性和 PLEs 的明确结论之前，需要进行未来研究，特别是涉及韧性的多维测量（例如，内在和外在因素）以及明确的理论模型的纵向研究。我们提出了一个动态的、多方面的、发展适当的和文化敏感的韧性模型，以供未来研究使用。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2022 APA，保留所有权利）。
