Claims

Two small pilot RCTs measuring resilience with validated scales reported significant improvement

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Both pilot RCTs that measured resilience using validated scales (Brief Resilient Coping Scale; Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale) reported statistically significant improvement in resilience. → Venegas Carolina Lavin 2019

Evidence

Venegas Carolina Lavin 2019

Venegas Carolina Lavin, Nkangu Miriam N., Duffy Melissa C., Fergusson Dean A., Spilg Edward G. (2019). Interventions to improve resilience in physicians who have completed training: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210512

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Review synthesis of two pilot RCTs: Mache et al. 2016 (psychosocial skills training with cognitive behavioural and solution-focused counselling) and Sood et al. 2011 (SMART program with wait-list control). Both "reported significant improvement in resilience"; no effect sizes printed.

"Two pilot RCTs [15,37] reported our primary outcome measure of resilience measured by validated resilience scales (Tables 1 and 2). Both pilot trials [15,37] reported significant improvement in resilience."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.