Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37097913›Full record

SynthesisTranscultural psychiatry2023

A systematic review of cross-cultural measures of resilience and its promotive and protective factors.

Alec Terrana, Wael Al-Delaimy

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Transcultural psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The holistic management of menopausal symptoms among indigenous women in the Gauteng province.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

2 authors.

Alec TerranaSchool of Medicine, University of California San Diego.ORCID 0000-0002-9834-843X
Wael Al-DelaimyHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health, University of California San Diego.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As psychological resilience has been increasingly recognized as contextually constructed, mixed methods studies that map out local ecologies of resilience have become increasingly common. However, the direct adaptation of quantitative tools for cross-cultural use based on qualitative findings has been relatively lacking. The current review aims to provide an overview of existing measures of resilience used cross-culturally and to synthesize the protective and promotive factors and processes (PPFP) of resilience identified within these measures into a single resource. A January 2021 search of PubMed for studies of the development of psychological resilience measures that excluded studies of non-psychological resilience yielded 58 unique measures. These measures contain 54 unique PPFP of resilience, ranging from individual to communal-level characteristics. This review is intended to serve as a complementary tool for adapting standardized measures for stakeholders requiring an assessment tool that is attuned to their context for mental health risk assessment and intervention evaluation.

Indexed as

Cross-Cultural ComparisonResilience, PsychologicalHumansProtective Factorscultural adaptationmeasure developmentmixed methodprotective and promotive factorsResilience

Identifiers

PMID37097913
PMCPMC10504813

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.