Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32153087›Full record

ReviewJournal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID2020

Resilience in the face of adversity in adults with an intellectual disability: A literature review.

Femke Scheffers, Eveline van Vugt, Xavier Moonen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Resilience in the face of adversity in adults with an intellectual disability: A literature review.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2020
    Review
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.

Femke ScheffersStichting MEE ZHN, The Hague, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3569-3356
Eveline van VugtUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Xavier MoonenUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Stichting MEE Zuid-Holland-NoordStichting tot Steun Vereniging tot Christelijke Verzorging van Geestes- en Zenuwzieken
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersons with an intellectual disability are at a higher risk of experiencing adversities. The concept of resilience offers promising insights into facilitating personal growth after adversity. The current study aims at providing an overview of the current research on resilience and the way this can contribute to quality of life in people with intellectual disability.

methodA literature review was conducted in the databases PsycINFO and Web of Science. To evaluate the quality of the studies, the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used.

resultsThe themes, autonomy, self-acceptance and physical health, were identified as internal sources of resilience. External sources of resilience can be found within the social network and daily activities.

conclusionThe current overview shows promising results to address resilience in adults with intellectual disability. More research is needed to identify the full range of resiliency factors.

Indexed as

Intellectual DisabilityResilience, PsychologicalAdultHumansQuality of Lifeadulthoodadversityintellectual disabilityresilience

Identifiers

PMID32153087
PMCPMC7496528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.