Were we stressed or was it just me – and does it even matter? Efforts to disentangle individual and collective resilience within real and imagined stressors

Although resilience is a multi-level process, research largely focuses on the individual and little is known about how resilience may distinctly present at the group level. Even less is known about subjective conceptualizations of resilience at either level. Therefore, two studies sought to better understand how individuals conceptualize resilience both as an individual and as a group. Study 1 (N = 123) experimentally manipulated whether participants reported on either individual or group-based responses to real stressors and analysed their qualitative responses. For individual responses, subjective resilience featured active coping most prominently, whereas social support was the focus for group-based responses. As these differences might be attributable to the different stressors people remembered in either condition, Study 2 (N = 171) held a hypothetical stressor (i.e., natural disaster) constant. As expected, resilience at the group level emphasized maintaining group cohesion. Surprisingly, the group condition also reported increased likelihood to engage in blame, denial, and behavioural disengagement. Contrary to expectations, participants in the individual condition reported stronger desire to seek out new groups. The combined findings are discussed within the framework of resilience and social identity and highlight the necessity of accounting for multiple levels and subjective conceptualizations of resilience

Psychological distress, protective factors and resilience during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A systematic review

Psychological distress, protective factors and resilience during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: parallel/post hoc protocol for a systematic review Authors: Röthke, N., Blessin, M., Kunzler A. M., Lieb, K. This review and relating protocol were elaborated in view of the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The ongoing pandemic is causing a worldwide burden on the population through overtaxing the healthcare system, lockdown of economy, contact ban, curfews and quarantine measures. Systematic review to identify and summarize the available literature on the psychological distress during the current pandemic in the general population and healthcare workers as well as possible risk factors and protective factors. The identification of these factors may inform the decisions of researchers and policy makers and might be used to develop psychosocial interventions for different target groups

Resilience interventions conducted in western and eastern countries — a systematic review

Previous research has demonstrated the efficacy of psychological interventions to foster resilience. However, little is known about whether the cultural context in which resilience interventions are implemented affects their efficacy on mental health. Studies performed in Western (k = 175) and Eastern countries (k = 46) regarding different aspects of interventions (setting, mode of delivery, target population, underlying theoretical approach, duration, control group design) and their efficacy on resilience, anxiety, depressive symptoms, quality of life, perceived stress, and social support were compared. Interventions in Eastern countries were longer in duration and tended to be more often conducted in group settings with a focus on family caregivers. We found evidence for larger effect sizes of resilience interventions in Eastern countries for improving resilience (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28 to 0.67; p < 0.0001; 43 studies; 6248 participants; I2 = 97.4%). Intercultural differences should receive more attention in resilience intervention research. Future studies could directly compare interventions in different cultural contexts to explain possible underlying causes for differences in their efficacy on mental health outcomes

Mental health and psychosocial support strategies in highly contagious emerging disease outbreaks of substantial public concern: A systematic scoping review.

BackgroundAcute disease outbreaks such as the COVID-19 pandemic cause a high burden of psychological distress in people worldwide. Interventions to enable people to better cope with such distress should be based on the best available evidence. We therefore performed a scoping review to systematically identify and summarize the available literature of interventions that target the distress of people in the face of highly contagious disease outbreaks.MethodsMEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science (January 2000 to May 7, 2020), and reference lists were systematically searched and screened by two independent reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative studies investigating the effects of psychological interventions before, during, and after outbreaks of highly contagious emerging infectious diseases, such as SARS, MERS, Ebola, or COVID-19 were included. Study effects were grouped (e.g. for healthcare professionals, community members, people at risk) and intervention contents at the individual and organizational level summarized. We assessed the level of evidence using a modified scheme from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.ResultsOf 4030 records found, 19 studies were included (two RCTs). Most interventions were delivered during-exposure and face-to-face, focused on healthcare workers and crisis personnel, and combined psychoeducation with training of coping strategies. Based on two high-quality studies, beneficial effects were reported for resilience factors (e.g. positive cognitive appraisal) and professional attitudes of healthcare workers, with mixed findings for mental health (e.g. depression). Across all studies, there was positive qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators. We identified seven ongoing studies mostly using online- and mobile-based deliveries.ConclusionsThere is preliminary evidence for beneficial effects of interventions to enable people to better cope with the distress of highly contagious emerging disease outbreaks. Besides the need for more high-quality studies, the summarized evidence may inform decision makers to plan interventions during the current pandemic and to develop pandemic preparedness plans