Cited by 34Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutStress and Burnout ResearchResilience and Mental Health

Resilience interventions in physicians: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Angelopoulou, Paraskevi, Panagopoulou, Efharis·2022·Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being

Abstract

The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in promoting resilience among physicians. Previous reviews concerning resilience did not assess effectiveness in a systematic way using meta-analytic methods. PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to January 31, 2020. Randomized clinical trials, non-randomized clinical trials, and repeated-measures studies of intervention designs targeting at resilience in physicians were included. Eleven studies were included in the review (n = 580 physicians). Research findings suggest that interventions for resilience in physicians were associated with small but significant benefits. Subgroup analyses suggested small but significantly improved effects for emotional-supportive-coping interventions (Hedges's g = 0.242; 95% CI, 0.082-0.402, p = .003) compared with mindfulness-meditation-relaxation interventions (Hedges's g = 0.208; 95% CI, 0.131-0.285, p = .000). Interventions that were delivered for more than a week indicated higher effect (Hedges's g = 0.262; 95% CI, 0.169-0.355, p = .000) compared with interventions delivered for up to a week (Hedges's g = 0.172; 95% CI, -0.010 to 0.355, p = .064). Results were not influenced by the risk of bias ratings. Findings suggest that physicians can benefit in their personal levels of resilience from attending an intervention specifically designed for that reason for more than a week. Moreover, policy-makers should view current results as a significant source of redesigning healthcare systems and promoting attendance of resilience interventions by physicians. Future research should address the need for more higher-quality studies and improved study designs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/aphw.12287

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Angelopoulou et al. included eleven studies on mindfulness and emotional-supportive coping, showing small but significant positive effects on resilience of physicians.

    “Another systematic review by Angelopoulou et al. included eleven studies on mindfulness techniques and emotional-supportive coping, showing small but significant positive effects on the resilience of physicians (21).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Angelopoulou, P., & Panagopoulou, E.
Affiliations
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (GR)
Corresponding author
Angelopoulou, Paraskevi
Venue
Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-05-21
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
3-25
ISSN
  • 1758-0846 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-0854
OpenAlex
W3163118671
Cited by
34
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Applied Psychology Health and Well-Being (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
State Scholarships Foundation (MIS‐5000432)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
Keywords
resilience, physicians, resilience interventions, mindfulness meditation, relaxation intervention, intervention duration, physician well-being, healthcare workforce
MeSH terms
Humans, Physicians, Meditation

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