Psychobiological factors of resilience and depression in late life.

In contrast to traditional perspectives of resilience as a stable, trait-like characteristic, resilience is now recognized as a multidimentional, dynamic capacity influenced by life-long interactions between internal and environmental resources. We review psychosocial and neurobiological factors associated with resilience to late-life depression (LLD). Recent research has identified both psychosocial characteristics associated with elevated LLD risk (e.g., insecure attachment, neuroticism) and psychosocial processes that may be useful intervention targets (e.g., self-efficacy, sense of purpose, coping behaviors, social support). Psychobiological factors include a variety of endocrine, genetic, inflammatory, metabolic, neural, and cardiovascular processes that bidirectionally interact to affect risk for LLD onset and course of illness. Several resilience-enhancing intervention modalities show promise for the prevention and treatment of LLD, including cognitive/psychological or mind-body (positive psychology; psychotherapy; heart rate variability biofeedback; meditation), movement-based (aerobic exercise; yoga; tai chi), and biological approaches (pharmacotherapy, electroconvulsive therapy). Additional research is needed to further elucidate psychosocial and biological factors that affect risk and course of LLD. In addition, research to identify psychobiological factors predicting differential treatment response to various interventions will be essential to the development of more individualized and effective approaches to the prevention and treatment of LLD.

Neurocognitive Correlates of Resilience in Late-Life Depression.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing understanding of the neurocognitive correlates of resilience in late-life depression (LLD) could inform interventions to promote more sustained remission. We investigated cross-sectional relations between baseline resilience and domains of neurocognitive functioning in depressed older adults enrolled in one of four trials. METHODS: Participants (N = 288) completed neurocognitive tests of memory, language performance, and executive functioning as well as measures of subjective memory performance and components of resilience (grit, active coping self-efficacy, accommodative coping self-efficacy, and spirituality). RESULTS: Medium-sized associations were observed between greater resilience (overall resilience, accommodative coping) and lower frequency of self-reported forgetting. Small positive associations were observed between language performance and total resilience, active coping self-efficacy, and accommodative coping self-efficacy. Small negative associations were observed between spirituality and each objective measure of cognitive performance. CONCLUSION: Future longitudinal studies will help elucidate the complex relation between resilience and cognitive functioning in LLD. In addition, randomized controlled trials targeting coping self-efficacy may inform the development of more effective and personalized interventions.