Resilience interventions in physicians: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in promoting resilience among physicians. Previous reviews concerning resilience did not assess effectiveness in a systematic way using meta-analytic methods. PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to January 31, 2020. Randomized clinical trials, non-randomized clinical trials, and repeated-measures studies of intervention designs targeting at resilience in physicians were included. Eleven studies were included in the review (n = 580 physicians). Research findings suggest that interventions for resilience in physicians were associated with small but significant benefits. Subgroup analyses suggested small but significantly improved effects for emotional-supportive-coping interventions (Hedges's g = 0.242; 95% CI, 0.082-0.402, p = .003) compared with mindfulness-meditation-relaxation interventions (Hedges's g = 0.208; 95% CI, 0.131-0.285, p = .000). Interventions that were delivered for more than a week indicated higher effect (Hedges's g = 0.262; 95% CI, 0.169-0.355, p = .000) compared with interventions delivered for up to a week (Hedges's g = 0.172; 95% CI, -0.010 to 0.355, p = .064). Results were not influenced by the risk of bias ratings. Findings suggest that physicians can benefit in their personal levels of resilience from attending an intervention specifically designed for that reason for more than a week. Moreover, policy-makers should view current results as a significant source of redesigning healthcare systems and promoting attendance of resilience interventions by physicians. Future research should address the need for more higher-quality studies and improved study designs.