Abstract
Background Modern demands and challenges among healthcare professionals can be particularly stressful and resilience is increasingly necessary to maintain an effective, adaptable, and sustainable workforce. However, definitions of, and associations with, resilience have not been examined within the primary care context.
Aim To examine definitions and measures of resilience, identify characteristics and components, and synthesise current evidence about resilience in primary healthcare professionals.
Design and setting A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies relating to the primary care setting.
Method Ovid®, Embase®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases were searched in December 2014. Text selections and data extraction were conducted by paired reviewers working independently. Data were extracted on health professional resilience definitions and associated factors.
Results Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria: eight were quantitative, four qualitative, and one was an intervention study. Resilience, although multifaceted, was commonly defined as involving positive adaptation to adversity. Interactions were identified between personal growth and accomplishment in resilient physicians. Resilience, high persistence, high self-directedness, and low avoidance of challenges were strongly correlated; resilience had significant associations with traits supporting high function levels associated with demanding health professional roles. Current resilience measures do not allow for these different aspects in the primary care context.
Conclusion Health professional resilience is multifaceted, combining discrete personal traits alongside personal, social, and workplace features. A measure for health professional resilience should be developed and validated that may be used in future quantitative research to measure the effect of an intervention to promote it.
INTRODUCTION
There is increasing recognition that a modern healthcare workforce needs to be resilient to cope with difficult situations.1 Although attention to resilience in the workplace is increasing, particularly in relation to staff retention, the concept of resilience among healthcare professionals within the primary care setting needs to be explored.2 Primary health care relates to community-based situations rather than hospital settings.
Resilience is described as ‘a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity’.3 Previous research has framed health professional resilience in relation to avoiding burnout, which is linked to workplace stress.4 However, from the wider literature on personal resilience, professional resilience appears to be more than not ‘burning out’; it involves positive adaptation and developing personal resources.3 Adverse workplace challenges can influence professional resilience. There are several likely sources of challenges to professional resilience in primary care. First, challenges could stem from difficult clinical issues or conflict with challenging patients. Second, challenges may be conferred by organisational issues unique to the specific workplace, for example, in-house communication, administration systems, or personal relationships. Third, external organisational pressures may be influential such as increasing scrutiny of practices and individuals through, for example, the Quality and Outcomes Framework, continuing professional development regulations, and revalidation. Although some individuals can become overwhelmed by these challenges, others are able to not only retain a positive outlook, but also to thrive in their roles.
A number of studies investigating the relationship between occupations and high suicide proportional mortality ratios have identified that those working in health professional roles, including doctors and nurses, have among the highest rates for both males and females.5 In the UK, the General Medical Council has recognised the need to promote resilience to reduce suicide in doctors and recommends that all medical schools provide training in emotional resilience.1 The concept of improving resilience during medical training has subsequently received interest1 and resilience is now more generally recognised as an important feature of health professionals.1,5,6
The aim of this study was to provide a current understanding of health professional resilience in the primary care setting, a systematic review was conducted. The review examined how health professional resilience is defined and measured in the primary care literature. It identified characteristics and factors associated with health professional resilience and synthesised the current evidence.
How this fits in
Primary healthcare professionals face a wide range of clinical conditions. The literature on health professional resilience in primary care has not previously been synthesised to identify definitions, characteristics, and associations. This review found primary healthcare professional resilience is multifactorial. Current measures do not adequately encompass the multifactorial nature of resilience in this setting.
METHOD
Data sources
Ovid®, Embase®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases were searched. Terms relating to primary care were combined with resilience in keywords, title, or abstract, and using appropriate truncation symbols and alternative spellings. The search strategy is shown in Ovid format in Appendix 1. Searches were restricted to empirical studies, in English, during the last 20 years; the last search was performed on 17 December 2014. Computer searches were supplemented by hand-searching of reference lists.
Study selection
Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to identify suitability for full-text extraction. All seven research team members independently scrutinised full texts of at least two studies each, where available (see results for availability reasons). Extracted data included populations and settings, sample sizes and response rates, definitions and measures of resilience, and other components of resilience and associations of other resilience factors. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Studies were limited to professionals in primary care; studies in educational settings were excluded, as were those solely in secondary care. Where studies included both primary and secondary care professionals, data were extracted for primary care professionals where possible. Due to the exploratory, descriptive nature of this review a formal quality assessment of the studies was not undertaken; all studies that met the inclusion criteria were examined. The terms ‘GP’ or ‘general practitioner’, ‘family physicians’, and ‘family practitioners’ were all considered to relate to the same discipline.
Data synthesis
Findings were synthesised under the key aims of the review, that is, definitions, characteristics, and associations with resilience.
RESULTS
The search identified 926 unique records. After screening and assessment of eligibility, 13 studies that explored or measured resilience were finally included (Figure 1).
Flow diagram for identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of papers for review.
Summary of included papers
All included studies were published in the last 8 years, including six in 2013,7–11,13 one in 2014,12 and one in 2015 (Table 1).14 Study designs varied: eight were quantitative,7,10–13,15–17 four were qualitative,9,14,18,19 and one was an intervention study.8
Studies included in systematic review
Countries and settings
Published studies originated from a range of mostly high income countries: Australia (n = 3),7,10,19 US (n = 3),8,13,15 Germany (n = 2),9,17 Sweden (n = 2),12,16 UK (n = 1),14 Canada (n = 1),18 and South Africa (n = 1).11
Study populations and settings
The mean age of the health professionals studied was not reported in six studies;7,8,11,14,18,19 in the remainder, ages ranged from 20–79 years (data not shown).
Populations in the quantitative studies consisted of combinations of medical professionals including: primary care/family physicians,10,11,13,15–17 GP registrars,7 and multiple hospital specialties.9,11,13,15,16 One study involved healthcare workers (in healthcare centres, public dental care centres, and hospitals) with at least 1 year of experience (roles were not specified).12
Qualitative studies investigated physicians from different hospital disciplines and GPs,9 family physicians,18 and other primary care practitioners working in a range of settings.14 The intervention study involved GPs only.8
Main aims of studies
The main aims of the quantitative studies were: investigating resilience as a modifiable factor;7,10,11,13 and exploring factors associated with burnout.7,11,13,15,16 Other areas investigated included compassion satisfaction, personal meaning in patient care and intolerance of uncertainty,7 depression,11 risk factors for alcohol use disorders,17 occupational stress, mental health profiles and self-reported levels of physical activity,12 career satisfaction and, work–life balance,15 and personality traits.10
Of the qualitative studies, two aimed to explore physicians’ perceptions of characteristics and health-promoting resilience strategies required in their jobs;9,18 one explored job satisfaction and resilience;19 and one investigated elements of stress, considering social and contextual issues, team or organisational issues, and informing service developments.14
The intervention study aimed to determine if teaching abbreviated mindfulness skills could improve resilience, quality of life (QOL), job satisfaction, and compassion.8 Mindfulness meditation practices were taught over four time points and participants completed online outcome measures.8
Measures and outcomes
Seven studies, including the intervention study, used existing measures of resilience. Six studies used versions of the Wagnild & Young Resilience Scale.21 One used the original 25-item scale,16 one a 26-item version,10 three used a 14-item version,7,8,13 and one used a German translation of the measure.17 One study11 used the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC).25
Maslach’s Burnout Inventory (MBI)26 was used in five quantitative studies,7,11,13,15,16 and one qualitative study used a single-item measure of burnout to characterise the groups.9 The three-factor model of the MBI was the ‘gold standard’ for exploring burnout for many years; these factors were: emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and personal accomplishment, and this model was used in a large proportion of previous studies exploring burnout.16
Other job-related variables measured in the quantitative studies included: the importance of interaction with professional colleagues,13 administrative workload,9 time for breaks,9,17 and working hours.9,15,17 Some studies reported sociodemographic information including number of children, social responsibilities, and marital status.
Synthesis of findings
Definitions of resilience
One study defined resilience as ‘maintaining health despite adversity’ ;8 two studies offered definitions of resilience as being able to moderate the negative effects of stress, to ‘bounce back’ from, or overcome, adversity.13 Another study concluded that resilience is:
‘A dynamic, evolving process of positive attitudes and effective strategies.’ 18
Several studies compared or contrasted resilience with burnout:
‘… a persistent, negative, work-related state of mind in “normal” individuals that is primarily characterised by exhaustion, and is accompanied by distress, a sense of reduced effectiveness, decreased motivation and the development of dysfunctional attitudes and behaviour at work.’ 11
Five studies described negative associations between resilience and burnout;7,11,13,15,16 and one simply described resilience as the inverted score on a burnout inventory. However, in several studies resilience was described as more than just not ‘burning out’: involving positive adaptation,21 development of personal resources,4 personal growth,13 or a sort of hardiness.17 That resilience encompasses more than just lack of burnout is also suggested by the one intervention study (a pilot study of abbreviated mindfulness) that showed significant improvements in burnout, but no change in measured resilience.8
Personal characteristics associated with resilience
Four quantitative studies examined the relationship between gender and resilience. One found that low levels of resilience were associated with a high volume and increased frequency intake of alcohol in male GPs. This study concluded that female GPs in Germany faced a more stressful burden than other females due to the challenging nature of their work as well as taking the leading role in raising children; female GPs had little opportunity for recreation time and, therefore, were more likely than others to succumb to destructive coping mechanisms such as alcohol overuse.17 One study reported higher emotional exhaustion among female practitioners who are responsible for home and family, compared with male colleagues,16 and another study reported that participants, regardless of gender, with responsibilities for caregiving had lower resilience scores overall.12 One study found moderately high trait scores in resilience in the sample; females scored higher for cooperativeness, reward dependence, and harm avoidance, but lower for the existential aloneness resilience scale. Effect sizes for gender differences were, however, small. Three quantitative studies7,15,16 explored gender associations with burnout. One argued that burnout is a ‘syndrome’ of emotional exhaustion, such as feeling exhausted and over-burdened, and that females were predominantly affected by emotional exhaustion, which was also associated with low resilience.16 The other two studies found no gender association with burnout.7,15
One questionnaire study examined the associations of resilience with personality features10 using an index of temperament and character traits. Resilient clinicians were characterised by high self-directedness (conscientious, self-accepting, and reliable), high persistence, and low harm avoidance. Constructs linked to low harm avoidance were also found in two other questionnaire studies, which found resilience to be associated with higher tolerance of uncertainty7 and lower ‘stress of conscience’.16 Qualitative studies also identified the importance of accepting uncertainty and occasional error18 and of actively engaging with uncertainty.9 Several studies described the importance of personal meaning13 or sense of purpose7,8 or vocation,18 although it is not clear whether this drives resilience, or arises as a consequence of resilient behaviour.
Work environment factors associated with resilience
Despite the obvious importance of stressors for the display of resilience none of the studies attempted to objectively measure workplace stress. Instead studies examined perceived control over work or identified protective environmental factors (control over workload or supportive colleagues).18,19 One study found that, although emotional resilience was lower with increasing numbers of hours worked per week, it was increased by having greater control over time and content of work.15 Qualitative studies described a range of mechanisms by which workload management was associated with perceived resilience, including delegation, boundary setting, etc.9,14,18
Social, personal, and lifestyle factors associated with health professional resilience
Social, personal, and lifestyle factors that influence resilience were investigated in several studies. Higher resilience was associated with physical activity.12 Home and social activities can be disrupted by work or worrying about work and vice versa, which results in tensions and this in turn can negatively affect resilience.15 When there is stress in leisure time, resilience may be increased by improving coping strategies including using evaluation activities (involving ‘the [in]ability to relax, the performance of pleasant activities, or the freedom to choose activities’).17 Family support, along with resilience and high perceived growth, was a protective factor for burnout.13 Two studies suggested that leisure time relieves stress. One of these studies further suggested that relieving tensions through leisure time may help to maintain resilience, due to the shift of focus from work.9
Overall synthesis
Despite the limited information in the current literature on resilience in primary healthcare professionals, a plausible model for professional resilience emerged. In that model, resilience permits the professional to manage demand (a combination of volume, intensity, and controllability of workload) assisted by external supports (both within work and beyond work). Resilience in the professional is represented by continuing to perform well, adapting to changing circumstances, and maintaining a sense of professional and personal fulfilment. Resilience in primary care professionals is likely to be underpinned by traits of high self-determination, high persistence, and low harm avoidance.
DISCUSSION
Summary
This international review revealed few studies of health professional resilience in the primary care setting. Furthermore, the focus was largely on doctors with very little on other health professionals.
Health professional resilience appears to be a multifactorial and evolutionary process. In the healthcare professions there are many stressful challenges. Resilience combines discrete personal traits alongside experience, leading to positive adaptation. There appear to be some recognised resilience strategies to support health professionals to reduce stress and remain healthy, which in turn may lead to effective patient care and thriving in their roles. There was no evidence in this review about increased resilience improving patient health in primary care, although evidence that specific training programmes may provide benefit is available from secondary and tertiary care.27,28
There are some caveats when considering the quality of the evidence. Some health professionals may have under-reported their stress or burnout levels due to the desire to be perceived as highly capable and in control, both psychologically and practically. Health professionals may be less likely to participate in research if they face greater demands at work, and those with high levels of career satisfaction who do not perceive the survey topic as important may also have been less likely to respond. Having said this, the majority of studies had large sample sizes, response rates were high, and a range of countries were covered.
The instruments used to measure resilience were varied, which made it difficult to compare across all studies. Validated instruments were very focused on a particular phenomenon such as burnout (MBI). The existing resilience measures that were used in some studies were based on personal characteristics only and did not examine social and workplace challenges, which can be an important part of professional resilience. A new measure of professional resilience that can take into account a range of relevant factors is warranted. The included studies also tended to use several different measures in the same study, making data collection cumbersome. Encouraging research participation from busy health professionals in primary care is increasingly difficult and the time to complete measures may have been a limitation.29 Generalisations of the results from the intervention study were limited due to self-selection and a lack of control group.8
Strengths and limitations
Limiting the searches to English language and primary care settings may have excluded some publications. Strengths of the review were the structured approach to data extraction and double reviewing of all stages. Only one intervention study was identified and the evidence base generally was from the last 5 years, suggesting that the sole intervention study8 may mark the start of a new phase of research and development around increasing resilience.
Implications for research and practice
It was evident that resilience is influenced by many factors other than the individual. Future interventions should take the multifaceted nature of resilience into account. Positive influences on resilience included social resources (support of family, peers, and other groups), physical activity (health, fitness, and sports), and outside interests (hobbies and leisure activities). Individuals with higher resilience scores also had strong beliefs; perceptions of life were meaningful and they had the ability and flexibility to adapt to change.
The influence of the work environment was evidently a key factor in professional resilience. Lack of control over schedules and working hours was a strong predictor of burnout and can lead to difficulties with work–life balance. Workplace factors included workload volume, the sense of control and/or autonomy at work, and feeling valued in the workplace. Therefore workplaces should foster working practices that recognise the importance of boundaries between work and home life, provide opportunities for development and social support, and mitigate against the impact of high volumes and intensity of work. If this is to be achieved, those responsible for the, arguably increasing, externally imposed challenges to workplace resilience should consider the tasks required of primary healthcare professionals. For example, the Quality and Outcomes Framework, revalidation, and Care Quality Commission regulations can be meaningful and constructive rather than simply burdensome. Doctors may face different problems from those of other healthcare professionals and this may also be worth exploring. Given that two studies indicated a gender difference, with females more likely to struggle with the balance between work and home life, there should be an awareness of gender differences in future initiatives.
Future research would benefit from a single, standardised measure of health professional resilience that accounts for the multifaceted nature of resilience. Such a measure should explore workplace factors; personal factors including the ability to deal with stressful situations and work–life balance; and social activities, support, and responsibilities. It is important too that the research should address the way in which an effective resilience measure could be incorporated most effectively into professional training and practice. It seems likely that self-assessment of, and reflection on, resilience should be introduced early in the training of all health professionals with the intention of fostering a career-long habit. Equally, a self-generated resilience score seems likely to have value in formal workplace appraisal and professional revalidation processes. This is attractive because meaningful discussions of personal resilience could enhance the perceived value of appraisal and revalidation processes, currently likely to be viewed as merely burdensome by many.
In conclusion, this review revealed the multifaceted nature of professional resilience, incorporating individual traits with social and workplace factors. A new health professional resilience measure should be developed to reflect the multidimensional nature of resilience, which could be used in future evaluations of interventions to build health professional resilience.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the funders for their support.
Appendix 1. Search strategy, OVID
|
Notes
Funding
The study was funded by NHS Grampian Endowments Fund Project No. 14/42.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval for this study was awarded by the University of Aberdeen College Ethics Review Board (Reference CERB/2014/10/1135 dated 17 November 2014).
Provenance
Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.
Competing interests
The authors have declared no competing interests.
Discuss this article
Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters
- Received December 16, 2015.
- Revision requested January 14, 2016.
- Accepted March 17, 2016.
- © British Journal of General Practice 2016
REFERENCES
In this issue
Jump to section
Keywords
More in this TOC Section
Related Articles
Cited By...
