Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24430878›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Resilience does matter: evidence from a 10-year cohort record linkage study.

Alison M Elliott, Christopher D Burton, Philip C Hannaford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Determinants of Pain-Induced Disability in German Women with Endometriosis during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Resilience Is Associated with Less Eating Disorder Symptoms in the NutriNet-Santé Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Stress, Resilience, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Among Black Women.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2019
    Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alison M ElliottCentre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Christopher D Burton
Philip C Hannaford

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZG/2/287Medical Research Council MR/K007017/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine 10-year mortality and hospital use among individuals categorised as resilient and vulnerable to the impact of chronic pain.

designA cohort record linkage study.

settingGrampian, Scotland.

participants5858 individuals from the Grampian Pain Cohort, established in 1996, were linked, by probability matching, with national routinely collected datasets.

main outcome measuresHRs for subsequent 10-year mortality and ORs/incidence rate ratios for subsequent 10-year hospital use, each with adjustment for potential confounding variables.

results36.5% of those with high pain intensity reported a low pain-related disability (categorised resilient) and 7.1% of those reporting low pain intensity reported a high pain-related disability (categorised vulnerable). Sex, age, housing, employment and long-term limiting illness were independently associated with being vulnerable or resilient. After adjustment for these variables, individuals in the resilient group were 25% less likely to die within 10 years of the survey compared with non-resilient individuals: HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91 and vulnerable individuals were 45% more likely to die than non-vulnerable individuals: HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.11. Resilient individuals were less likely to have had an outpatient or day-case visit for anaesthetics: OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.79, but no other clinical specialities. Vulnerable individuals were significantly less likely to have had any outpatient or day-case visit (OR 0.43, 0.25 to 0.75); but more likely to have had a psychiatric visit (OR 1.96, 1.06 to 3.61). No significant differences in likelihood of any inpatient visits were found.

conclusionsResilient individuals have a better 10-year survival than non-resilient individuals indicating that resilience is a phenomenon worth researching. Further research is needed to explore who is likely to become resilient, why and how, as well as to tease out the internal and external factors that influence resilience.

Indexed as

Resilience, PsychologicalAdultAgedChronic PainFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMedical Record LinkageMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTime FactorsEPIDEMIOLOGYPAIN MANAGEMENTPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID24430878
PMCPMC3902361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.