The Relationship Between Self-Compassion and Resilience in the General Population: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resilience can protect individuals from the negative impact of adversity, facilitating a swift recovery. The exploration of protective factors contributing to resilience has been a central focus of research. Self-compassion, a positive psychological construct that involves treating oneself with kindness, holds the potential to bolster resilience. Although several studies have indicated an association between self-compassion and resilience, there is a lack of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining this relationship and the potential moderators and mechanisms. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the relationship between self-compassion and resilience in the general population, perform a meta-analysis to quantify the effect size of their association, and explore potential moderators (eg, age, gender, culture, and health status) and mediators. METHODS: We will search the Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and CNKI databases for peer-reviewed studies (including observational and experimental studies) that examined the relationship between self-compassion and resilience, with no language restrictions. There are no restrictions regarding participants' age, gender, culture, or health status. Qualitative studies, conference abstracts, review articles, case reports, and editorials will be excluded. Two reviewers (XL and JH) will independently screen the literature, extract data, and assess the quality of the eligible studies. If possible, the pooled effect size between self-compassion and resilience will be meta-analyzed using a random-effect model. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis will be conducted to examine the moderating roles of age, gender, culture, health status, and other potential moderators. The characteristics and main findings of eligible studies will be summarized in tables and narrative descriptions. Results from the meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup analysis will be presented quantitatively. RESULTS: We registered our protocol with PROSPERO, conducted the search, and initiated the screening in April 2024. We expect to start data analysis in October 2024 and finalize the review by March 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review and meta-analysis will provide evidence on the protective role of self-compassion in resilience under adversity. Our investigation into potential moderators will highlight the contexts and groups where the benefits of self-compassion can be maximized. The findings are expected to provide valuable insights for health care professionals and stakeholders, informing the development of interventions aimed at enhancing resilience by fostering self-compassion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024534390; https://tinyurl.com/3j3rmcja. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/60154.
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 | 0.092 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.007 |
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".