RESUMO
Patients with long-term disease experience low resilience, emphasising the importance of psychological interventions to improve resilience. However, there is no comprehensive evidence on the efficacy of resilience-related psychological interventions (RRPIs) in this population. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate and extend knowledge from previous meta-analyses on the efficacy of RRPIs on resilience, stress, anxiety, depression and quality of life among patients with long-term disease. Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL electronic databases were searched until 3 February 2023. The pooled effect size of the efficacy of RRPIs was calculated using the Hedges' g (g) with random-effects model, while Cochrane Q-statistics and I2 tests assessed heterogeneity in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3.0 software. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool evaluated the quality of studies. Moderator analysis was used to explore sources of heterogeneity. Twenty randomised controlled trial studies were identified, representing a total of 1388 individuals with long-term disease. RRPIs significantly enhance resilience (g = 0.79), alleviate stress (g = -0.78), decrease anxiety (g = -1.14), mitigate depression (g = -0.96) and improve quality of life (g = 0.48). Positive psychology, mindfulness, cognitive behavioural therapy, acceptance and commitment-based intervention exhibited medium effects in strengthening resilience. Short-term effects of RRPIs on enhancing resilience were observed at 3-month follow-up period (g = 0.50). The incorporation of RRPIs into the management of patients with long-term disease shows a positive impact on their resilience, stress, anxiety, depression and quality of life. The results offer an evidence-based foundation for nurses in promoting resilience among patients with long-term disease.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the global prevalence of low resilience among the general population and health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, WHO COVID-19 databases, and grey literature were searched for studies from January 1, 2020, to August 22, 2022. Hoy's assessment tool was used to assess for risk of bias. Meta-analysis and moderator analysis was performed using the Generalized Linear Mixed Model with a corresponding 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) adopting the random-effect model in R software. Between-study heterogeneity was measured using I2 and τ2 statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 44 studies involving 51,119 participants were identified. The pooled prevalence of low resilience was 27.0 % (95 % CI: 21.0 %-33.0 %) with prevalence among the general population being 35.0 % (95 % CI: 28.0 %-42.0 %) followed by 23.0 % (95 % CI: 16.0 %-30.9 %) for health professionals. The 3-month trend analysis of the prevalence of low resilience beginning January 2020 to June 2021 revealed upward then downward patterns among overall populations. The prevalence of low resilience was higher in females, studied during the delta variant dominant period, frontline health professionals, and undergraduate degree education. LIMITATIONS: Study outcomes showed high heterogeneity; however, sub-group and meta-regression analyses were conducted to identify potential moderating factors. CONCLUSIONS: Globally, 1 out of 4 people among the general population and health professionals experienced low resilience due to COVID-19 adversity. The prevalence of low resilience was twice as much among the general population compared to health professionals. These findings provide information for policymakers and clinicians in the development and implementation of resilience-enhancing programs.