Cited by 298Resilience and Mental HealthOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingHealth, psychology, and well-being

Development of a theoretically derived model of resilience through concept analysis.

Gillespie, Brigid M, Chaboyer, Wendy, Wallis, Marianne·2007·Contemporary Nurse

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Resilience refers to a dynamic process that results in adaptation in the context of significant adversity (Margalit 2004). The concept of resilience has been of interest to various professional groups for many years; however, it is only recently that the nursing profession has begun to recognise its potential contribution in diverse clinical contexts. OBJECTIVE: First, to identify current theoretical and operational definitions of resilience and second, to identify and describe defining attributes of resilience. METHODS: The method of inquiry was guided by Walker and Avant's (1995) approach to concept analysis. FINDINGS: From this analysis, a conceptual model of resilience postulates that the constructs of self-efficacy, hope and coping are defining attributes of resilience. DISCUSSION: Resilience appears to be a process that can be developed at any time during lifespan, and thus is not an inherent characteristic of personality. Further, the development of resilience is based on the synergy shared between individuals and their environments and experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Further theoretical clarification of the ways in which individuals transform stressful experiences into opportunities for increased growth may contribute to nursing knowledge in the form of better understanding of the resilience concept in the context of identifying strategies that build it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5172/conu.2007.25.1-2.124

Cites

45 of 45 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gillespie, B. M., Chaboyer, W., & Wallis, M.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Venue
Contemporary Nurse
Published
2007-05
Volume
25
Issue
1-2
Pages
124-135
ISSN
  • 1037-6178 (ISSN-L)
  • 1839-3535
OpenAlex
W1990459538
Cited by
298
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 14
FWCI
5.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Contemporary Nurse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, psychology, and well-being
Keywords
resilience, conceptual analysis, self-efficacy, hope, coping, defining attributes, adversity, adaptation, nursing theory, conceptual model, person-environment interaction
MeSH terms
Models, Theoretical

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