Purpose: This article aims to identify how the term “resilience” is addressed in adult health science due to ongoing criticism about the lack of consistency in its conceptualization.Method: Two databases (PubMed and PsycArticles) were searched to retrieve reviews published from 2015 up until 2020 on the general conceptualization of resilience. All reviews had to meet specific inclusion criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of 18 articles. After discussing different conceptualizations regarding the process-oriented approach of resilience in adult health research, we will highlight some mechanisms that are supposed to be involved in the resilience process.Results: Research on resilience in health sciences confronts three core difficulties: defining positive outcome for a processual construct, describing different trajectories within the process, and identifying mechanisms that mediate resilience.Conclusion: The definition of resilience in mental health research as a multidimensional adaptation process is widely accepted, and multiple research paradigms have contributed to a better understanding of the concept. However, the definition of a processual construct in a way that allows for high expert consensus and a valid operationalization for empirical studies remains a challenge. Future research should focus on the assessment of multiple cross-domain outcomes and international and interdisciplinary prospective mixed-method longitudinal designs to fill in the missing links.
Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Der Begriff der Resilienz wird im Alltag häufig im Sinn einer Persönlichkeitseigenschaft verwendet: Eine Person ist resilient und damit widerstandsfähig gegenüber Belastungen. Und auch im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs wird nicht eindeutig zwischen Resilienz als Eigenschaft, Prozess oder Outcome unterschieden. Fragestellung Gibt es so etwas wie eine „resiliente Persönlichkeit“? Methode Vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Befunde werden verschiedene mögliche Zusammenhänge von Resilienz und Persönlichkeit vorgestellt. Dabei wird unterschieden zwischen 1) Resilienz als Synonym für ein komplexes Persönlichkeitskonstrukt, 2) einer Prädiktion von Resilienz durch spezifische Persönlichkeitseigenschaften, 3) einer Interaktion von Persönlichkeitseigenschaften und Situation, und 4) einer Rückwirkung von Resilienzerfahrungen auf die Persönlichkeit. Schlussfolgerung Auch wenn es für die individuelle Resilienz förderlich sein kann, bestimmte Aspekte der Persönlichkeit zu stärken, ist im Rahmen eines zeitlich und situativ dynamischen Resilienzkonzepts die Hypothese einer grundsätzlich „resilienten Persönlichkeit“ weder empirisch begründet noch sinnvoll.
Background/Aim: Metaphors on theoretical concepts may be congruent or divergent from their explicit definitions. We carried out a secondary qualitative analysis on metaphors of members of an interdisciplinary research group on resilience and investigated: (A) Which metaphors do experts in different disciplines use to describe people showing resilience? (B) Do these (implicit) metaphors support the (explicit) theses of the research group on resilience? (C) Do we find differences between experts from different disciplines in the use of metaphors on resilience? Method: Nine guideline-based interviews with experts from medicine, psychology, philosophy, and theology were studied using a systematic metaphor analysis, basing on inductive and deductive categorizations. Results: Eight metaphor sources were identified, for example, battle, path. Experts used similar metaphors to describe resilience that often overarched the concepts of resilience as a trait, process, and outcome. Moments of vulnerability within the resilience trajectory were found. Conclusions: The analysis revealed high concordance of metaphors across different disciplines, reflecting both the ideas of the group as well as the mainstream view of resilience. This supports that implicit concepts may be more difficult to reframe than explicit theories. Few differences between disciplines may point to the impact of an overarching Western concept of individual resilience.
Zusammenfassung Innerhalb der Palliativversorgung konnte der Resilienzbegriff bislang nicht eindeutig definiert werden und das Verhältnis zu ähnlichen oder möglicherweise überlappenden Konzepten blieb aus. Dieser Beitrag erläutert daher zentrale Begriffe, welche für die Versorgung schwer kranker und sterbender Menschen, für Angehörige sowie für Palliativteams relevant sind. Beschrieben wird die Bedeutung der Salutogenese, einhergehend mit einer Gesundheits- und Ressourcenfokussierung, auch am Ende des Lebens. Aspekte der Resilienz werden mit den drei Teilkonstrukten Handhabbarkeit, Verstehbarkeit und Sinnhaftigkeit des Kohärenzgefühls sowie mit dem Autonomiebegriff, Lebenssinn, Lebensqualität und Würde verknüpft. Die Messbarkeit dieser Konstrukte stellt – nicht zuletzt aufgrund der höchst individuell bewertbaren Maßstäbe der Patientinnen und Patienten – für Behandelnde eine große Herausforderung dar. Instrumente wie die Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQoL) oder die Schedule for Meaning in Life Evaluation (SMiLE), bei denen individuelle Prioritäten und Bedürfnisse berücksichtigt werden, können hierbei behilflich sein. Zudem werden therapeutische Ansätze vorgestellt, welche Verbindungen zu den vorgestellten Konstrukten aufweisen. Hierzu gehören achtsamkeitsbasierte Interventionen, Biografiearbeit und die würdezentrierte Therapie. Bekannt sind viele dieser Interventionen vor allem im Zusammenhang von Präventionsmaßnahmen – z. B. der Burnout-Prophylaxe. Die Frage, ob diese jedoch auch zur Resilienzförderung geeignet sind, bleibt ebenso wie eine notwendige Operationalisierung des Resilienzbegriffs weiterhin Gegenstand aktueller Forschung.
Background Thousands of Eastern Europeans find employment caring for older individuals as transmigrating live-in home care workers in private households in Germany. Studies have shown that the stressors threatening their well-being are multifaceted and include inequalities and a high practical and emotional workload, but research on protective factors is still scarce. Aim & methods This qualitative descriptive study focuses on both the stressors and factors that promote care workers’ well-being and contribute to their psychological resilience. In guideline-based interviews, 14 female and one male care workers were asked about their stressors and the factors that help them cope. Results Identified stressors included separation from their own family, strained relationship with either or both the care recipient (dementia) and their relatives (violation of worker´s rights and devaluation of care work), and permanent availability and lack of free time due to a 24-h care schedule. Resilience factors were both external and internal and included positive social relationships, self-determination, experience in care work, and intrinsic job motivation. Conclusion Live-ins reside in an ambiguous setting, exposed to both structural and individual strains. However, external and internal resilience factors contribute to a generally positive attitude toward their job and indicate the agency of this precariously employed group. A socially anchored appreciation of their work and an officially controlled expansion of free time are mandatory to improve the working conditions of live-in care workers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.