Claims

There is weak evidence to support one resilience intervention over another for physicians who have completed training

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? The systematic review found weak evidence supporting any one intervention over another for improving resilience in practicing physicians, with evidence quality ranging from very low to low. → 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

Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO-registered, PRISMA-reported) of resilience interventions for physicians who have completed training; 7,579 records screened, 17 studies included, 9 with extractable physician data. The review concludes "there is weak evidence to support one intervention over another".

"Our systematic review demonstrates that there is weak evidence to support one intervention over another to improve resilience in physicians who have completed training. The quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from very low to low."

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.