Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34346489›Full record

SynthesisThe Gerontologist2022

A Systematic Review and Correlational Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated With Resilience of Normally Aging, Community-Living Older Adults.

Sylwia Górska, Anusua Singh Roy, Lucy Whitehall, Linda Irvine Fitzpatrick, Nichola Duffy, Kirsty Forsyth

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Gerontologist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Sylwia GórskaSchool of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Musselburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6947-3362
Anusua Singh RoySchool of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Musselburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5483-8832
Lucy WhitehallSchool of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Musselburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1090-2767
Linda Irvine FitzpatrickEdinburgh Health and Social Care Partnership, NHS Lothian, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9599-8015
Nichola DuffyEdinburgh Health and Social Care Partnership, NHS Lothian, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6964-8508
Kirsty ForsythSchool of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Musselburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6732-1699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesGlobal policy emphasizes the need to promote healthy aging through supporting inclusivity, safety, and functional independence. Research indicates that efforts to enhance resilience can contribute to meeting these objectives. We employed a meta-analytical approach to examine evidence on resilience in community-living older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsWe searched electronic databases until January 13, 2020 for observational studies investigating factors associated with resilience in this population. Articles had to provide quantitative data based on standardized assessment and include samples where mean participants' age and lower 95% confidence interval were more than 55 years. We included 49 studies reported in 43 articles and completed 38 independent meta-analyses, 27 for personal and 11 for contextual factors associated with resilience.

resultsA range of personal and contextual factors were significantly associated with resilience, with effects sizes predominantly small to moderate (0.1 < r < 0.49). Factors reflecting psychological and physical well-being and access to/quality of social support were associated with higher resilience. Factors indicative of poorer psychological well-being and social challenges were associated with lower resilience. Longitudinal evidence was limited. The level of between-study heterogeneity was substantial to considerable. Where relevant analysis was possible, the identified publication bias was also considerable. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The quality of the available evidence, as well as issues related to measurement of resilience, indicates the need for further work relative to its conceptualization and assessment. The presented findings have important clinical implications, particularly within the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 impact on resilience in older adults.

Indexed as

COVID-19Resilience, PsychologicalAgedHumansAnalysis—meta-analysisAnalysis—systematic reviewContextual factorsMeasurementPersonal factors

Identifiers

PMID34346489
PMCPMC9579466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.