'Not a panacea' - Expert perspectives on the concept of resilience and its potential for palliative care.

Background: Resilience is an increasingly used term in medicine and subject to various definitions, often not easy to grasp. There are established core concepts for patients receiving palliative care, for example, meaning in life, that have already been researched a lot. Resilience, relative to these concepts, is a new object of research in palliative care, where it has so far been used predominantly with regard to the well-being of teams. Aim: To explore how experts in palliative care define the concept of resilience and its suitability for patients, significant others, and professionals. Design: Qualitative study using summarizing content analysis according to Mayring. Setting/participants: Twenty-one health and social care professionals with expertise caring for persons with life-threatening/limiting illnesses and their relatives were interviewed in three individual interviews and four focus groups. All conversations were recorded, transcribed, coded via MAXQDA, and validated by another researcher. Results: Resilience has been described as something procedural, dynamic, individual, and flexible. In connection with well-known concepts such as posttraumatic growth or terms from the field of mindfulness, social environment or personal factors have also been linked to resilience. Resources such as spirituality can contribute to resilience, and resilience itself can function as a resource, for example, by contributing to quality of life. An active use of the term in practical work with patients or relatives is rare, but it is used in education or team measures. Limited lifespan can pose a challenge to an active use of the concept of resilience. Conclusion: Resilience as a very individual approach provides added value to other core concepts of palliative care. Within the palliative context, the normative dimension of resilience must be well reflected. A broader definition of resilience is recommended, leaving room for everyone to find their own form of resilience. The concept of resilience in palliative care includes opportunities as well as risks and should, therefore, be implemented carefully, requiring specific training.

What experts think about resilience in palliative care Why was this study done? Resilience is described as a process of coping with stress or adversity while remaining physically and mentally functional. Resilience is subject to a range of definitions. In the context of palliative care, where many other concepts, such as meaning in life, are already used, the definition of resilience also represents a challenge. We wanted to learn how people working in palliative care, defined by us as experts, understand and use the concept of resilience. In addition, there are three different target groups for resilience: patients, significant others and professionals. We wanted to learn about the differences in the application of resilience to these groups. What did the researchers do? We conducted interviews with a total of 21 experts in individual and group settings (so-called focus groups). All interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim to analyse them precisely using qualitative methods. What did the researchers find? This study shows how resilience is understood in the work field of the participants: namely as something procedural, dynamic, individual and flexible but normative at the same time. Factors such as the social environment, the number and intensity of crises already experienced (known as the idea of posttraumatic growth), aspects from the field of mindfulness or spirituality can contribute to developing resilience, which is why we call these things resources for resilience. Experts use the term resilience less in their daily work with patients or significant others, but more in education. What do the findings mean? The concept of resilience in palliative care involves both risks and opportunities. Practical work with the concept has to be well reflected and must be applied sensitively. Therefore, it is essential that professional as well as informal caregivers receive specific training that also includes respect for each individual's personal concept of resilience.

'We are all in the same boat': a qualitative cross-sectional analysis of COVID-19 pandemic imagery in scientific literature and its use for people working in the German healthcare sector.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presents a significant challenge to professional responders in healthcare settings. This is reflected in the language used to describe the pandemic in the professional literature of the respective professions. The aim of this multidisciplinary study was to analyze the linguistic imagery in the relevant professional literature and to determine the identification of different professional groups with it and its emotional effects. Method: A list of 14 typical, widespread and differing imageries for COVID-19 in form of single sentences (e.g., "Until the pandemic is over, we can only run on sight.") were presented to 1,795 healthcare professionals in an online survey. The imageries had been extracted from a qualitative search in more than 3,500 international professional journals in medicine, psychology and theology. Ratings of agreement with these imageries and feelings about them were subjected to factor analysis. Results: Based on the list of imageries presented, it was possible to identify three factors for high/low agreement by experiences, and two factors for high/low induced feelings. Broad agreement emerged for imageries on "fight against the crisis" and "lessons learned from the crisis", while imageries on "acceptance of uncontrollability" tended to be rejected. Imageries of "challenges" tended to lead to a sense of empowerment among subjects, while imageries of "humility" tended to lead to a sense of helplessness. Conclusion: Based on the qualitative and subsequential quantitative analysis, several factors for imageries for the COVID-19 pandemic were identified that have been used in the literature. Agreement with imageries is mixed, as is the assessment of how helpful they are.

[Who is afraid of Ockham's razor? : A discourse analysis on resilience in palliative care (2000-2021)]. / Wer hat Angst vor "Ockham's Razor"? : Eine Diskursanalyse zur Resilienz in der Palliativversorgung (2000­2021).

BACKGROUND: The concept of resilience is becoming increasingly disseminated from material science into various fields of science. It is infiltrating medical fields predominantly via psychology and is also recommended for coping with the special burdens in pain management and palliative care. A precise definition of the term and its operationalization pose problems. AIM: A critical stocktaking of the use of this term in the discourse of palliative care research. METHOD: Analytical discourse analysis of a text corpus from palliative medical care publications in the time period from 2000 to 2021, obtained by means of a systematic literature search. RESULTS: In the research discourse of palliative care, resilience is a topic primarily as a strategy for self-optimization of employees (e.g., burnout prophylaxis with the aim of preserving the workforce). Only rarely does the question of whether it offers potential for patients and their families take center stage, and then more as a catchword than as a concrete concept. The reason is that there is so far no adequate operationalization of the concept of resilience. Furthermore, there is a lack of sufficient justification for the relevance of the concept in patient care of palliative medicine. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of qualified contributions of palliative research to the metadiscourse about resilience, especially in the context of affected patients. A successful operationalization of the term requires a highly complex multidimensionality of the palliative path of an interdisciplinary approach. There is a lack of ethical standards that prevent an affirmative instrumentalizing application of the term.

Live-in migrant home care workers in Germany: Stressors and resilience factors.

BACKGROUND: Thousands of Eastern Europeans find employment caring for older individuals as transmigrating live-in home care workers in private households in Germany. Studies have shown that the stressors threatening their well-being are multifaceted and include inequalities and a high practical and emotional workload, but research on protective factors is still scarce. AIM & METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study focuses on both the stressors and factors that promote care workers' well-being and contribute to their psychological resilience. In guideline-based interviews, 14 female and one male care workers were asked about their stressors and the factors that help them cope. RESULTS: Identified stressors included separation from their own family, strained relationship with either or both the care recipient (dementia) and their relatives (violation of worker´s rights and devaluation of care work), and permanent availability and lack of free time due to a 24-h care schedule. Resilience factors were both external and internal and included positive social relationships, self-determination, experience in care work, and intrinsic job motivation. CONCLUSION: Live-ins reside in an ambiguous setting, exposed to both structural and individual strains. However, external and internal resilience factors contribute to a generally positive attitude toward their job and indicate the agency of this precariously employed group. A socially anchored appreciation of their work and an officially controlled expansion of free time are mandatory to improve the working conditions of live-in care workers.

Resilience in Adult Health Science Revisited-A Narrative Review Synthesis of Process-Oriented Approaches.

Purpose: This article aims to identify how the term "resilience" is addressed in adult health science due to ongoing criticism about the lack of consistency in its conceptualization. Method: Two databases (PubMed and PsycArticles) were searched to retrieve reviews published from 2015 up until 2020 on the general conceptualization of resilience. All reviews had to meet specific inclusion criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of 18 articles. After discussing different conceptualizations regarding the process-oriented approach of resilience in adult health research, we will highlight some mechanisms that are supposed to be involved in the resilience process. Results: Research on resilience in health sciences confronts three core difficulties: defining positive outcome for a processual construct, describing different trajectories within the process, and identifying mechanisms that mediate resilience. Conclusion: The definition of resilience in mental health research as a multidimensional adaptation process is widely accepted, and multiple research paradigms have contributed to a better understanding of the concept. However, the definition of a processual construct in a way that allows for high expert consensus and a valid operationalization for empirical studies remains a challenge. Future research should focus on the assessment of multiple cross-domain outcomes and international and interdisciplinary prospective mixed-method longitudinal designs to fill in the missing links.