ArticleClinical and translational science2022
How resilient were we in 2021? Results of a LinkedIn Survey including biomedical and pharmaceutical professionals using the Benatti Resiliency Model.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How resilient were we in 2021? Results of a LinkedIn Survey including biomedical and pharmaceutical professionals using the Benatti Resiliency Model.Clinical and translational science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enhancing resiliency should elevate innovation and efficiency in biomedical research and development (R&D); however, compared with other professions, data on practice of resilience is lacking. Using the Benatti Resiliency Model (5 anchors: Well-Being, Self-Awareness, Brand, Connection, and Innovation), we surveyed professionals, including those in biomedical and pharmaceutical R&D. A structured LinkedIn questionnaire (March 16-May 23, 2021), surveyed each model anchor using five categories. One hundred fifty-eight participants (~6% student/trainee, 18%, 27%, and 49% in 1-5, 5-15 or >15 years post-terminal degree) took the survey (90 in biomedical and pharmaceutical R&D). Over 50% chose "always"/"often" across questions, except external influence or engagement. The question with one of the lowest "always" scores (~15%) was "I get feedback on my influence and impact in my career" in Brand, highlighting areas for leadership development and coaching. In the anchor of Well-being, nutrition and stress management also received some lowest "always" scores (~15% for both). Connection and Innovation scores trended slightly higher in biomedical and pharmaceutical R&D. No students/trainees chose "always" in Brand, indicating evolution of brand maturity over time. Self- and survey-assessed resiliency scores were associated (r
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.