Approaches used in the study of resilience

1
Approaches used in the study of resilience

• Gopal Netuveli
• International Centre for Life Course Studies in
  Society and Health
• Department of Primary Care and Social Medicine
• Imperial College London

2
(No Transcript)
3
Resilience

• From Latin resilerre, to jump back or to
  rebound
• First discussed in detail by Holling (1973)
• the ability to return to the original state after
  perturbation and
• the ability to persist in the face of
  perturbation.
• Similarly defined in the study of children
• rebounding from adversity (Gramerzy 1993)
• preserving competence in the face of adversity
  (Werner 1994)
• good outcomes despite adversity and risk (Masten
  2001).

4
Resilience in cross sectional longitudinal
studies
Cross-sectional approach
BHPS Waves 1-14
ELSA Wave 1
Longitudinal approach
5
Definitions used

• Cross sectional analysis
• Flourishing despite adversity
• Longitudinal analysis
• Bouncing back after adversity

6
Identifying resilience cross-sectionally
7
Identifying resilience longitudinally

• Bouncing back as a sequence of GHQ-12 scores in
  which the GHQ-12 score at the post-adversity time
  point was within the 95 confidence interval of
  the GHQ-12 score at the pre-adversity time point,
  after being elevated at the adversity time point
  to above the pre-adversity 95 confidence
  interval. - Netuveli et al. 2008

8
Differences between approaches

• Treatment of Adversity
• CS Same as risk
• LS Using CS approach there are four
  possibilities
• 1)Negative change in outcome after exposure
  persisting for a long period after exposure
  True adversity No resilience
• 2) No change Not an adversity? lack of
  vulnerability, or hardiness?
• 3) Positive change Not an adversity?
  flourishing?
• 4) Negative change in outcome after exposure and
  recovery later True adversity Resilience as
  bouncing back or flourishing.
• Using LA only 1 and 4 are relevant

9
Differences between approaches

• Treatment of multiple adversities
• CSA
• Each adversity is treated as identical and
  independent. Additive model.
• LA
• Dependency between adversities can be studied.
  Multiplicative model.

10
Differences in the methods used

• ELSA Classification scheme
• Interaction to test resilience
  factors
• BHPS
• Analytical strategy
• Three time points pre-event (t0), event (t1),
  post-event (t2)

11
Discussion points from our studies

• Resilience is scarce in older ages. Prevalence of
  15. Not the ordinary magic described in
  children.
• Different from successful ageing resilience
  increased with age.
• Gender paradox probability of exposure to
  adversity and resilience are both higher for
  women.
• Adversity and resilience are influenced
  differently by the same factors (e.g. tenure in
  BHPS)
• Social support before and during the adversity
  time point was the only significant predictor.
• Resilience was not adaptation

12
Our conclusions

• Resilience is a social process that converts
  social goods into good outcomes.
• It is to be found in the warp and woof of family
  and society.
• Policy implication
• Resilience can be nurtured through social
  policies that foster social support at the
  population level. However to be useful policy
  makers should adopt a preventative approach
  implementing policies before adversity has been
  experienced.