Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the relationship between resilience resources at the individual (e.g., optimism), interpersonal (e.g., social support), and neighborhood (e.g., social environment) levels, and cardiovascular outcomes among adults in the United States. Method: On 9/25/2020, electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized intervention studies, and prospective cohort studies that examined the relationship between resilience resources at the individual, interpersonal, or neighborhood level and cardiovascular outcomes. Studies that met the eligibility criteria were summarized narratively and quantitatively. Because relevant search results yielded only observational studies, risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Results: From 4,103 unique records, 13 prospective cohort studies with a total of 310,906 participants met the eligibility criteria, and six of these studies were included in the meta-analyses. Most relevant studies found that higher levels of individual-level resilience resources were associated with lower incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, with point estimates ranging from .46 to 1.18. Interpersonal-level resilience resources (i.e., social network) were associated with a lower coronary heart disease risk (risk ratio, .76; 95% CI [.56, 1.02]). Neighborhood-level resilience resources (i.e., perceived social cohesion and residential stability) were associated with a lower odds of stroke (odds ratio, .92; 95% CI [.84, 1.01]). Conclusions: Evidence suggests that higher levels of resilience resources are associated with better cardiovascular outcomes. However, more prospective studies with diverse populations are needed to strengthen the evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the relationship between resilience resources at the individual (e.g., optimism), interpersonal (e.g., social support), and neighborhood (e.g., social environment) levels, and cardiovascular outcomes among adults in the United States. Method: On 9/25/2020, electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized intervention studies, and prospective cohort studies that examined the relationship between resilience resources at the individual, interpersonal, or neighborhood level and cardiovascular outcomes. Studies that met the eligibility criteria were summarized narratively and quantitatively. Because relevant search results yielded only observational studies, risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Results: From 4,103 unique records, 13 prospective cohort studies with a total of 310,906 participants met the eligibility criteria, and six of these studies were included in the meta-analyses. Most relevant studies found that higher levels of individual-level resilience resources were associated with lower incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, with point estimates ranging from .46 to 1.18. Interpersonal-level resilience resources (i.e., social network) were associated with a lower coronary heart disease risk (risk ratio, .76; 95% CI [.56, 1.02]). Neighborhood-level resilience resources (i.e., perceived social cohesion and residential stability) were associated with a lower odds of stroke (odds ratio, .92; 95% CI [.84, 1.01]). Conclusions: Evidence suggests that higher levels of resilience resources are associated with better cardiovascular outcomes. However, more prospective studies with diverse populations are needed to strengthen the evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Mario Sims; LáShauntá M Glover; Arnita F Norwood; Christina Jordan; Yuan-I Min; LaPrincess C Brewer; Laura D Kubzansky Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Edward P Havranek; Mahasin S Mujahid; Donald A Barr; Irene V Blair; Meryl S Cohen; Salvador Cruz-Flores; George Davey-Smith; Cheryl R Dennison-Himmelfarb; Michael S Lauer; Debra W Lockwood; Milagros Rosal; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: Jee Won Park; Akilah J Dulin; Belinda L Needham; Mario Sims; Eric B Loucks; Joseph L Fava; Laura A Dionne; Matthew M Scarpaci; Charles B Eaton; Chanelle J Howe Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-12-15
Authors: Akilah J Dulin; Jee Won Park; Matthew M Scarpaci; Laura A Dionne; Mario Sims; Belinda L Needham; Joseph L Fava; Charles B Eaton; Alka M Kanaya; Namratha R Kandula; Eric B Loucks; Chanelle J Howe Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 4.135