Global prevalence of resilience in health care professionals: A systematic review, meta‐analysis and meta‐regression

Abstract

Aims: This review aims to examine the prevalence estimate of low resilience among health care professionals and identify the factors affecting the prevalence.Background: Health care professionals experience high levels of stress. Understanding the health care professionals' resilience may provide an insight into how they perform in a highly stressed environment.Evaluation: A comprehensive search of 11 databases was conducted. Studies that provided prevalence rates for low resilience among health care professionals working in a health care setting were included. Meta-analyses, sensitivity, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were conducted.Key issues: Among 27,720 studies, 41 studies (N = 17,073) across 16 countries were included. The prevalence of low resilience was 26% (95% CI: 20-32). Subgroup analyses indicated that types of resilience measures affect resilience prevalence significantly. A higher prevalence of low resilience was observed among allied health professions during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Middle East.Conclusions: This review indicated the prevalence of low resilience and type of resilience measurement instruments that affected the prevalence.Implications for nursing management: This review provides a roadmap to design tailored, discipline-specific and sustainable resilience training for nurses. Nursing managers should monitor the working hours and workload of nursing staffing in order to provide a protective working environment. This is a systematic review, and the PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021235350.

Examining the dimensionality, reliability, and invariance of the Chinese version of the Resilience Scale-14: A multicenter cross-sectional survey in Chinese junior nurses

“…For gender, we found a statistically significant difference: the male participants showed a higher latent mean than the female participants, but the difference in actual value was not very large. The findings were confirmed with specific earlier investigations (21). The relationship between marital status, training status, and resilience has not been reported in past studies.…”

“…The relationship between sociodemographic factors and resilience has not been widely reported, and the conclusions reached are inconsistent. To compensate for the considerable differences in sample sizes between male and female participants ( n = 516), we randomly selected a subsample of female participants ( 21 , 27 ). Similarly, random selections were drawn from the other sociodemographic feature groups to match the smaller sample sizes.…”

“…Multiple group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was then examined by demographic variables (gender, academic degree, marital status, and status of receiving standardized training) with the better-fitting model. Considering the substantial differences in sample size among demographic variables, the subgroup with a larger sample was selected at random that matched groups with the small samples ( 21 , 27 ). Stepwise procedures were employed to test measurement invariance as follows the parameters measured: (I) the CFA model was separately tested in each group; (II) a simultaneous test of the equal form (configural invariance); (III) the equality of factor loadings (metric invariance); (IV) the equality of indicator intercepts (scalar invariance); and (V) the equality of indicator residual variances (optional, test of strict invariance).…”

“…Moreover, prior studies revealed distinctions in the resilience levels of nurse populations with different sociodemographic variables, such as gender, marital status, educational level, and standardized training in reported use of the RS-14 based on ANOVA test or student t -test ( 9 , 21 ). However, the traditional ANOVA test was not appropriate since measurement invariance was unclear ( 22 ).…”

“…Measurement invariance (MI) was essential in repetitive comparisons that concerning other variables (i.e., time, metric, et al) and could be estimated in four ways: configural invariance, metric invariance, scalar invariance, and strict invariance ( 22 , 23 ). Only one study using the RS-14 assessed resilience levels between men and women as well as between races or ethnicities ( 21 ). Sociodemographic factors associated with nurse resilience were investigated, whereas, mixed evidence restricted its application ( 9 ).…”