TAP reading note: Physical Resilience in Older Adults: Systematic Review and Development of an Emerging Construct
The review frames physical resilience around resistance and recovery after a health stressor, distinguishing it from reserve available beforehand. Only 19 of 49 included papers explicitly defined the construct, and only one was an intervention study. Its main contribution is conceptual organisation and candidate measurement approaches.
Updated 2026-10-29 · Archived
This is the text and publication record captured for this edition. Later corrections appear in subsequent editions. Website design and interactive software are not archived here.
What the study found
The review frames physical resilience around resistance and recovery after a health stressor, distinguishing it from reserve available beforehand. Only 19 of 49 included papers explicitly defined the construct, and only one was an intervention study. Its main contribution is conceptual organisation and candidate measurement approaches.
Scope & limitations
English-language literature involving adults aged 65 or older: 49 papers from 1,078 abstracts, including 18 longitudinal, eight cross-sectional and 16 conceptual papers or letters, among other designs.
Searching for resilience with age/language restrictions may miss work using terms such as recovery. Conceptual coding requires interpretation. There was no pooled effect or validation of a universal scale; frailty, reserve and observed recovery trajectories remain distinct.
Population & sample
English-language literature involving adults aged 65 or older: 49 papers from 1,078 abstracts, including 18 longitudinal, eight cross-sectional and 16 conceptual papers or letters, among other designs.
Exposure or intervention
Framework analysis of definitions and measures, with two-person screening/extraction and discussion of disagreements.
Outcomes
Definitions and candidate approaches involving reserve, frailty and recovery trajectories.
Time frame
PubMed/EMBASE search through 15 January 2015; original follow-up periods varied.
Research funding
P30AG028716; Whitson: R01AG043438, R24AG045050, NIRG-13-282202, I21 RX001721-01; Duan-Porter: VA OAA TPP 21–022; Colón-Emeric: R01 NR003178-11S1, W81XWH-12-2-0093.
Research conflicts of interest
A separate competing-interest declaration was not identified in the consulted body text; this does not establish absence of interests.
Reading scope
The Duke-hosted author text, pages 489–495, was read through. Appendix 1's individual records remain to be checked.
References
Publication record
TAP-RDN-0008 · v0.3 · English
The Allostasis Project is founded and supported by Resilio.
Record for v0.3 · Updated
Editorial responsibility: TAP Editorial Team
Scientific review
Not yet scientifically reviewed
Editorial note
Under the editorial responsibility of the TAP Editorial Team, this publication used AI assistance for content organization and editing. Scientific review is recorded separately on this page.
Download detailed editorial record (JSON) ↓
How responsibilities and review are recorded ↗© The Allostasis Project. All rights reserved. Reproduction or adaptation requires separate permission, subject to applicable legal exceptions.