Search

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.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodA 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.ResultsBased 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.ConclusionBased 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.

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.

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.