Abstract
Background: Up to half of Western children and adolescents experience at least one type of childhood adversity. Individuals with a history of childhood adversity have an increased risk of psychopathology. Resilience enhancing factors reduce the risk of psychopathology following childhood adversity. A comprehensive overview of empirically supported resilience factors is critically important for interventions aimed to increase resilience in young people. Moreover, such an overview may aid the development of novel resilience theories. Therefore, we conducted the first systematic review of social, emotional, cognitive and/or behavioral resilience factors after childhood adversity.
Methods: We systematically searched Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus
(e.g., including MEDLINE) for English, Dutch, and German literature. We included
cohort studies that examined whether a resilience factor was a moderator and/or a mediator for the relationship between childhood adversity and psychopathology in young people (mean age 13–24). Therefore, studies were included if the resilience factor was assessed prior to psychopathology, and childhood adversity was assessed no later than the resilience factor. Study data extraction was based on the STROBE report and study quality was assessed with an adapted version of Downs and Black’s scale. The preregistered protocol can be found at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016051978.
Results: The search identified 1969 studies, of which 22 were included (eight
nationalities, study sample n range: 59–6780). We found empirical support for 13 of 25 individual-level (e.g., high self-esteem, low rumination), six of 12 family-level (e.g., high family cohesion, high parental involvement), and one of five community-level resilience factors (i.e., high social support), to benefit mental health in young people exposed to childhood adversity. Single vs. multiple resilience factor models supported the notion that resilience factors should not be studied in isolation, and that interrelations between resilience factors should be taken into account when predicting psychopathology after childhood adversity
Methods: We systematically searched Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus
(e.g., including MEDLINE) for English, Dutch, and German literature. We included
cohort studies that examined whether a resilience factor was a moderator and/or a mediator for the relationship between childhood adversity and psychopathology in young people (mean age 13–24). Therefore, studies were included if the resilience factor was assessed prior to psychopathology, and childhood adversity was assessed no later than the resilience factor. Study data extraction was based on the STROBE report and study quality was assessed with an adapted version of Downs and Black’s scale. The preregistered protocol can be found at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016051978.
Results: The search identified 1969 studies, of which 22 were included (eight
nationalities, study sample n range: 59–6780). We found empirical support for 13 of 25 individual-level (e.g., high self-esteem, low rumination), six of 12 family-level (e.g., high family cohesion, high parental involvement), and one of five community-level resilience factors (i.e., high social support), to benefit mental health in young people exposed to childhood adversity. Single vs. multiple resilience factor models supported the notion that resilience factors should not be studied in isolation, and that interrelations between resilience factors should be taken into account when predicting psychopathology after childhood adversity
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 230 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1-17 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Frontiers in Psychiatry |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | June |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 19 Jun 2018 |
Funding
We thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier version of the article. Funding. A-LvH is supported by the Royal Society (620 DH15017 & RGFEA 180029), and MQ (MQBFC/2). JF is supported by the Medical Research Council Doctoral Training/Sackler Fund and the Pinsent Darwin Fund. HC was supported by CLAHRC-East of England at the time of data analysis. PW's personal unrestricted research account paid for some incidental costs of obtaining papers. Funders of the authors played no role in the conduction or reporting of the systematic review.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| CLAHRC-East of England | |
| Pinsent Darwin Fund | |
| Medical Research Council | |
| Royal Society | 620 DH15017, MQBFC/2, RGFEA 180029 |