How sustainable is resilience? A mixed-methods study on the COVID-19-pandemic as a challenge to resilience resources of older adults who previously recovered from depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite expanding knowledge about the internal and external resources that contribute to resilience among individuals who have experienced depression, the long-term accessibility and protectiveness of these resources across different stressors is unknown. We investigated whether and how the resilience resources of individuals who previously recovered from late-life depression remained protective during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: = 19). We used thematic analysis to determine the protective resources after depression and during the COVID-19 pandemic and linear mixed models to examine the effect of these resources on change in depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: While resources of 'Taking agency', 'Need for rest', 'Managing thought processes' and 'Learning from depression' remained accessible and protective during the pandemic, 'Social support' and 'Engaging in activities' did not. 'Negotiating with lockdown measures', 'changing social contact' and 'changing activities' were compensating strategies. Quantitative data confirmed the protectiveness of social contact, social cohesion, sense of mastery, physical activity, staying active and entertained and not following the media. CONCLUSION: Many of the resources that previously helped to recover from depression also helped to maintain good mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Where accessibility and protectiveness declined, compensatory strategies or new resources were used. Hence, the sustainability of resilience is enabled through adaptation and compensation processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".