CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 663Resilience and Mental HealthPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 105 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intervention studies to foster resilience—A systematic review and proposal for a resilience framework in future intervention studies

Open access
Chmitorz, A., Kunzler, A., Helmreich, I., Tüscher, O., Kalisch, R., Kubiak, T., Wessa, M., Lieb, K.·2018·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Psychological resilience refers to the phenomenon that many people are able to adapt to the challenges of life and maintain mental health despite exposure to adversity. This has stimulated research on training programs to foster psychological resilience. We evaluated concepts, methods and designs of 43 randomized controlled trials published between 1979 and 2014 which assessed the efficacy of such training programs and propose standards for future intervention research based on recent developments in the field. We found that concepts, methods and designs in current resilience intervention studies are of limited use to properly assess efficacy of interventions to foster resilience. Major problems are the use of definitions of resilience as trait or a composite of resilience factors, the use of unsuited assessment instruments, and inappropriate study designs. To overcome these challenges, we propose 1) an outcome-oriented definition of resilience, 2) an outcome-oriented assessment of resilience as change in mental health in relation to stressor load, and 3) methodological standards for suitable study designs of future intervention studies. Our proposals may contribute to an improved quality of resilience intervention studies and may stimulate further progress in this growing research field.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.002

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 105 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 663

Related

Metadata

Authors
Chmitorz, A., Kunzler, A., Helmreich, I., Tüscher, O., Kalisch, R., Kubiak, T., Wessa, M., & Lieb, K.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Chmitorz, A.
  • Lieb, K.
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
59
Pages
78-100
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.002
OpenAlex
W2767816539
Cited by
663
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 78 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 15
FWCI
4.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2018-03-01)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
psychological resilience, resilience training, resilience interventions, intervention efficacy, resilience definitions, research design, mental health, resilience framework
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, Mental Health, Stress, Psychological, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Resilience, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review