SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
Teacher resilience and adaptation in digital teaching contexts: a systematic review of research trends, psychological constructs, and evidence gaps.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital teaching expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 emergency and continues through hybrid, robot-mediated, metaverse, and artificial-intelligence-supported education. Yet evidence about teacher resilience and adaptation remains conceptually and methodologically dispersed. This PRISMA 2020-guided systematic review mapped how resilience and adaptation are conceptualized, which psychological constructs and indirect statistical pathways have been studied, and where important evidence gaps remain. Web of Science and Scopus records exported on 21 and 23 February 2026 yielded 4,465 records; 27 English-language empirical studies were included after duplicate removal, screening, retrieval, and full-text eligibility assessment. Data were extracted into a structured matrix, synthesized descriptively and thematically, and appraised with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018. The corpus comprised 11 qualitative, 9 quantitative non-randomized, 5 mixed-methods, and 2 quantitative descriptive studies, involving at least 11,199 teachers or teacher educators. Twenty-one studies concerned COVID-19/emergency remote teaching and six examined emerging technologies. Six non-mutually-exclusive themes were identified: personal psychological resources and coping (22/27), pedagogical adaptation, agency, and innovation (21/27), digital competence, self-efficacy, and readiness (19/27), contextual and structural constraints (18/27), wellbeing-related outcomes (16/27), and social or institutional support (13/27). Seven studies tested indirect effects, but all used cross-sectional quantitative components; none formally tested contextual moderation or evaluated an intervention. MMAT findings supported qualitative coherence while highlighting confounding, representativeness, nonresponse, and weakest-component limitations in quantitative and mixed-methods evidence. The evidence therefore supports a context-embedded descriptive account of resilience and adaptation. Future research should prioritize longitudinal, intervention, and explicitly technology-specific designs. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/xf2ve/overview, xf2ve.
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.