Cited by 60Resilience and Mental HealthOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Resilience after adversity: an umbrella review of adversity protective factors and resilience-promoting interventions

Open access
Abate, Biruk Beletew, Sendekie, Ashenafi Kibret, Tadesse, Abay Woday, Engdaw, Tesfaye, Mengesha, Ayelign, Zemariam, Alemu Birara, Alamaw, Addis Wondmagegn, Abebe, Gebremeskel +1 more·2024·Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract

Introduction: Resilience is the dynamic adaptive process of maintaining or recovering mental health from stressors, such as trauma, challenging life circumstances, critical transitions, or physical illnesses. Resilience after adversity can be fostered through protective factors and the implementation of interventions that promote resilience. Hence, it is essential to investigate both protective and vulnerable factors to reduce the negative effects of unfavorable life events and increase resilience through positive risk-response interventions. Objective: To assess the effect of previous adversity, protecting factors, and resilience-promoting interventions to possess resilience after adversity in a global context. Methods: The study included English language articles sourced from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Sciences, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Google Scholar published before 15 April 2024. These articles reported the effect of adversity, protecting factors, and/or resilience-promoting interventions to possess resilience after adversity in a global context without a population age limitation. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. A weighted inverse-variance random-effects model was applied to find the pooled estimates. The subgroup analysis, heterogeneity, publication bias, and sensitivity analysis were also assessed. Results: A total of 44 articles (n = 556,920 participants) were included in this umbrella review. From the random-effects model analysis, the pooled effect of adversity on the development of resilience was 0.25 (p < 0.001). The pooled effects of adversity-protective factors and resilience-promoting interventions after adversity were 0.31 (p < 0.001) and 0.42 (p < 0.001), respectively. The pooled effects of specific adversity protective factors were 0.26, 0.09, 0.05, 0.34, 0.23, and 0.43 for the availability of support, cognitive ability, community cohesion, positive self-perception, religious involvement, and self-regulation, respectively. The pooled effects of specific resilience-promoting interventions were 0.30, 0.21, 0.51, and 0.52 for cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) interventions, mindfulness-based interventions, mixed interventions, and resilience-promoting interventions, respectively. Conclusion: The findings of this umbrella review revealed that people who experienced early adversity can develop resilience later in life. The study highlights the need to consider adversity protective factors, such as availability of support (family, friends, and school), cognitive ability, community cohesion, positive self-perception, religious involvement, and self-regulation, and resilience-promoting interventions, including CBT interventions, mindfulness-based interventions, and mixed interventions, to enhance resilience promotion programs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1391312

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Child-level factors including executive functioning and emotion regulation skills have been linked to resilient outcomes following adversity.

    “Child-level factors including executive functioning and emotion regulation skills have also been linked to resilient outcomes following adversity, and these factors may also reflect indicators or components of resilience (Abate et al., 2024;Gee & Cohodes, 2023;Keane & Evans, 2022;Masten, 2014).”

    From Resilience following severe early life neglect: A review of longitudinal evidence from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project (2026) · cites this paper as Abate et al., 2024

    The Discussion reports cognitive ability and self-regulation as protective factors associated with resilience after adversity. It does not specifically identify executive functioning or emotion regulation skills as the factors linked to resilient outcomes; those are more specific than the terms used in the paper. No page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The most consistently corroborated protective factors following early adversity include stable, high-quality caregiving, supportive and close social relationships, and community support and safety.

    “The most consistently corroborated factors include stable, high-quality caregiving, supportive and close social relationships (e.g., peers, mentors), as well as community support and safety (Abate et al., 2024;Crouch et al., 2019;Gee & Cohodes, 2023;Keane & Evans, 2022;Masten, 2014).”

    From Resilience following severe early life neglect: A review of longitudinal evidence from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project (2026) · cites this paper as Abate et al., 2024

    The Conclusion identifies support from family, friends, and school, along with community cohesion, as protective factors after early adversity; the Discussion also mentions caregiver support and positive early relationships. But the paper does not identify these as the most consistently corroborated factors or specifically establish community safety as one: its Results report an imprecise estimate for community cohesion and larger estimates for other factors. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abate, B. B., Sendekie, A. K., Tadesse, A. W., Engdaw, T., Mengesha, A., Zemariam, A. B., Alamaw, A. W., Abebe, G., & Azmeraw, M.
Affiliations
  • Woldia University (ET)
  • University of Gondar (ET)
  • Curtin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Abate, Biruk Beletew
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2024-10-04
Volume
15
Pages
1391312-1391312
ISSN
1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403135654
Cited by
60
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 1
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
resilience, adversity, protective factors, cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based interventions, social support, community cohesion, religious involvement, self-regulation, cognitive ability, positive self-perception, mental health recovery

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