TAP reading note: Resilience in Clinical Care: Getting a Grip on the Recovery Potential of Older Adults
The paper describes three approaches to recovery potential: trajectories after a stressor, standardized stimulus-response tests and recovery from everyday small perturbations. An updated search included 27 studies, 26 concerning recovery after functional decline; most still relied on static reserve measures and binary recovery outcomes.
Updated 2026-10-29 · Archived
The scientific content and references belong to this edition. The complete captured record is available to download below; later corrections appear in subsequent editions. Website design and interactive software are not archived here.
What the study found
The paper describes three approaches to recovery potential: trajectories after a stressor, standardized stimulus-response tests and recovery from everyday small perturbations. An updated search included 27 studies, 26 concerning recovery after functional decline; most still relied on static reserve measures and binary recovery outcomes.
Scope & limitations
Research on older adults' recovery potential, particularly with multimorbidity, extending an earlier review.
Recalled pre-stressor status, sparse measurements, unclear stressor intensity and concurrent disturbances limit comparison. Links between a subsystem and whole-person function need validation. The authors consider dynamic measures insufficiently validated for routine implementation in clinical guidelines.
Population & sample
Research on older adults' recovery potential, particularly with multimorbidity, extending an earlier review.
Exposure or intervention
Recovery trajectories, stimulus-response testing and natural micro-recovery, compared with static reserve assessments.
Outcomes
Functional recovery and candidate dynamic measures, without a common pooled effect.
Time frame
Approximately five years of updated literature beyond the 2015 review, adding recovery search terms; recovery windows varied.
Research funding
Whitson's contribution was supported by P30AG028716, UH2AG056925, R33AG057806 and NIH/NCATS UL1TR002553.
Research conflicts of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest and reported no sponsor role.
Reading scope
The full body, Tables 1–2, captions and disclosures were read through. Supplementary search methods and individual study records remain to be checked.
References
Publication record
TAP-RDN-0027 · v0.3 · English
The Allostasis Project is founded and supported by Resilio.
Record for v0.3 · Updated
Editorial responsibility: TAP Editorial Team
Editorial note
Under the editorial responsibility of the TAP Editorial Team, this publication used AI assistance for content organization and editing.
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.