Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals
Jul 7, 2020The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Psychological methods to build resilience in healthcare workers
AI simplified
Abstract
Among 6892 healthcare professionals, resilience training may lead to a 0.45 standardized mean difference in levels of resilience compared to controls.
- Resilience training is associated with lower levels of depression, showing a standardized mean difference of -0.29.
- Participants receiving resilience training may experience lower levels of stress or stress perception, with a standardized mean difference of -0.61.
- There is little evidence suggesting resilience training affects anxiety or overall well-being and quality of life.
- Effect sizes for resilience and stress reduction are moderate, while other outcomes show small effects.
- The evidence is classified as very-low certainty due to high risk of bias in most studies and a lack of medium- or long-term data.
AI simplified
BACKGROUND: Resilience can be defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during or after periods of stressor exposure, which may result from a potentially traumatising event, challenging life circumstances, a critical life transition phase, or physical illness. Healthcare professionals, such as nurses, physicians, psychologists and social workers, are exposed to various work-related stressors (e.g. patient care, time pressure, administration) and are at increased risk of developing mental disorders. This population may benefit from resilience-promoting training programmes.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals, that is, healthcare staff delivering direct medical care (e.g. nurses, physicians, hospital personnel) and allied healthcare staff (e.g. social workers, psychologists).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and three trial registries from 1990 to June 2019. We checked reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. We updated this search in four key databases in June 2020, but we have not yet incorporated these results.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults aged 18 years and older who are employed as healthcare professionals, comparing any form of psychological intervention to foster resilience, hardiness or post-traumatic growth versus no intervention, wait-list, usual care, active or attention control. Primary outcomes were resilience, anxiety, depression, stress or stress perception and well-being or quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resilience factors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risks of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (at post-test only).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 RCTs (high-income countries: 36). Thirty-nine studies solely focused on healthcare professionals (6892 participants), including both healthcare staff delivering direct medical care and allied healthcare staff. Four studies investigated mixed samples (1000 participants) with healthcare professionals and participants working outside of the healthcare sector, and one study evaluated training for emergency personnel in general population volunteers (82 participants). The included studies were mainly conducted in a hospital setting and included physicians, nurses and different hospital personnel (37/44 studies). Participants mainly included women (68%) from young to middle adulthood (mean age range: 27 to 52.4 years). Most studies investigated group interventions (30 studies) of high training intensity (18 studies; > 12 hours/sessions), that were delivered face-to-face (29 studies). Of the included studies, 19 compared a resilience training based on combined theoretical foundation (e.g. mindfulness and cognitive-behavioural therapy) versus unspecific comparators (e.g. wait-list). The studies were funded by different sources (e.g. hospitals, universities), or a combination of different sources. Fifteen studies did not specify the source of their funding, and one study received no funding support. Risk of bias was high or unclear for most studies in performance, detection, and attrition bias domains. At post-intervention, very-low certainty evidence indicated that, compared to controls, healthcare professionals receiving resilience training may report higher levels of resilience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.65; 12 studies, 690 participants), lower levels of depression (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09; 14 studies, 788 participants), and lower levels of stress or stress perception (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.15; 17 studies, 997 participants). There was little or no evidence of any effect of resilience training on anxiety (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.23; 5 studies, 231 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or well-being or quality of life (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.30; 13 studies, 1494 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Effect sizes were small except for resilience and stress reduction (moderate). Data on adverse effects were available for three studies, with none reporting any adverse effects occurring during the study (very-low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For healthcare professionals, there is very-low certainty evidence that, compared to control, resilience training may result in higher levels of resilience, lower levels of depression, stress or stress perception, and higher levels of certain resilience factors at post-intervention. The paucity of medium- or long-term data, heterogeneous interventions and restricted geographical distribution limit the generalisability of our results. Conclusions should therefore be drawn cautiously. The findings suggest positive effects of resilience training for healthcare professionals, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is a clear need for high-quality replications and improved study designs.
Related papers
Jul '20
Psychological methods to build resilience in healthcare students
cited by 79 papers
systematic review
Nov '22
Folic acid supplements and malaria risk and severity in people using antifolate malaria drugs in affected areas
cited by 21 papers
systematic review
May '21
Teaching healthcare providers how to respond to violence against women by partners
cited by 60 papers
systematic review
Jul '20
Psychological therapies for women affected by partner violence
cited by 66 papers
systematic review
Nov '20
Support methods for mental health and resilience of frontline health and social care workers during and after disease outbreaks
cited by 268 papers
systematic review
May '21
Online thinking and behavior therapies for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
cited by 36 papers
systematic review
Nov '14
Mental health and well-being support for survivors of torture through psychological, social, and welfare programs
cited by 46 papers
systematic review
Aug '23
Remote psychological therapies for managing long-term non-headache pain in adults
cited by 14 papers
systematic review
Dec '21
Training before deployment to build resilience in military and emergency workers
cited by 22 papers
systematic review