Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37076882›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2023

Organizational resilience in healthcare: a review and descriptive narrative synthesis of approaches to resilience measurement and assessment in empirical studies.

Agnieszka Ignatowicz, Carolyn Tarrant, Russell Mannion, Dena El-Sawy, Simon Conroy, Daniel Lasserson

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Visualizing dermatology clinic routines using narrative networks.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Organizational Resilience in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.Journal of healthcare management / American College of Healthcare Executives
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Agnieszka IgnatowiczInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. a.m.ignatowicz@bham.ac.uk.
Carolyn TarrantDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Russell MannionRussell Mannion, Health Services and Management Centre, College of Social Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Dena El-SawyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Simon ConroyMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing, University College London, London, UK.
Daniel LassersonWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

NIHR Policy Research Programme NIHR200718
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe coronavirus pandemic has had a profound impact on organization and delivery of care. The challenges faced by healthcare organizations in dealing with the pandemic have intensified interest in the concept of resilience. While effort has gone into conceptualising resilience, there has been relatively little work on how to evaluate organizational resilience. This paper reports on an extensive review of approaches to resilience measurement and assessment in empirical healthcare studies, and examines their usefulness for researchers, policymakers and healthcare managers.

methodsVarious databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL (EBSCO host), Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley), CDSR, Science Citation Index, and Social Science Citation Index) were searched from January 2000 to September 2021. We included quantitative, qualitative and modelling studies that focused on measuring or qualitatively assessing organizational resilience in a healthcare context. All studies were screened based on titles, abstracts and full text. For each approach, information on the format of measurement or assessment, method of data collection and analysis, and other relevant information were extracted. We classified the approaches to organizational resilience into five thematic areas of contrast: (1) type of shock; (2) stage of resilience; (3) included characteristics or indicators; (4) nature of output; and (5) purpose. The approaches were summarised narratively within these thematic areas.

resultsThirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. We identified a lack of consensus on how to evaluate organizational resilience in healthcare, what should be measured or assessed and when, and using what resilience characteristic and indicators. The measurement and assessment approaches varied in scope, format, content and purpose. Approaches varied in terms of whether they were prospective (resilience pre-shock) or retrospective (during or post-shock), and the extent to which they addressed a pre-defined and shock-specific set of characteristics and indicators.

conclusionA range of approaches with differing characteristics and indicators has been developed to evaluate organizational resilience in healthcare, and may be of value to researchers, policymakers and healthcare managers. The choice of an approach to use in practice should be determined by the type of shock, the purpose of the evaluation, the intended use of results, and the availability of data and resources.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesEmpirical ResearchHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesApproaches to resilience measurementHealthcare resilienceOrganisational resilienceResilience assessmentResilience characteristics and indicators

Identifiers

PMID37076882
PMCPMC10113996
OpenAlexW4366579950

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.