Mapping resilience: a scoping review on mediators and moderators of childhood adversity with a focus on gender patterns.

BACKGROUND

Childhood adversity is associated with a host of negative health and socioeconomic outcomes far into adulthood. The process of avoiding such outcomes is often referred to as resilience. Mapping resilience comprehensively and across contexts is highly relevant to public health, as it is a step towards understanding environments and interventions that contribute to preventing or reversing negative outcomes after early adverse experiences.

OBJECTIVES

This review scoped out the literature on resilience factors in relation to adulthood outcomes as diverse as mental health and educational attainment. Our aim was to understand where there is untapped research potential, by examining the current evidence base on resilience factors in terms of (a) resources that can buffer the impact of childhood adversity and (b) the pathways linking adversity to long-term outcomes. Furthermore, we aimed to identify gender patterns in these resources and pathways, which has not been a primary interest of reviews on resilience to date, and which can add to our understanding of the different ways in which resilience may unfold.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies had to include an adversity experienced in childhood, an outcome considered indicative of resilience in adulthood, and at least one putative resilience factor, which had to be approached via mediation or moderation analysis. We considered cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

We searched PubMed, Scopus and PsycINFO and included original, peer-reviewed articles published before 20 July 2023 in English, German, French, Spanish, Dutch and Swedish.

CHARTING METHODS

All three authors collaborated on the extraction of information relevant to answering the research questions. The results were visually and narratively summarised.

RESULTS

We included 102 studies. Traditionally anchored in the field of psychology, the resilience literature focuses heavily on individual-level resilience factors. Gender was considered in approximately 22% of included studies and was always limited to comparisons between men and women. There is no evidence that childhood adversity impacts men and women differently in the long term, but there is some evidence for gender differences in resilience factors.

CONCLUSIONS

There is untapped potential in resilience research. By considering structural-level factors simultaneously with individual-level factors, and including gender as one of the elements that shape resilience, we can map resilience as a heterogeneous, multilevel process from a public health perspective. This would complement the extensive existing literature on individual-level factors and help reframe resilience as a concept that can be intervened on at a structural level, and that is subject to societal norms and forces, such as gender. There is a lack of quantitative studies including transgender and gender-non-conforming persons.