Resilience in Clinical Care: Getting a Grip on the Recovery Potential of Older Adults
Sanne M. W. Gijzel · Heather E. Whitson · Ingrid A. van de Leemput · Marten Scheffer · Dieneke van Asselt · Jerrald L. Rector · Marcel G. M. Olde Rikkert · René J. F. Melis
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2019
What the research tells us
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 & interpretation
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.
Study at a glance
- POPULATION & SAMPLE
- Research on older adults' recovery potential, particularly with multimorbidity, extending an earlier review.
- EXPOSURE / INTERVENTION / SUBJECT
- 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.
Cited on this site
Editorial & review record
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 ↗Scope of this reading note
The full body, Tables 1–2, captions and disclosures were read through. Supplementary search methods and individual study records remain to be checked.
- Study funding
- Whitson's contribution was supported by P30AG028716, UH2AG056925, R33AG057806 and NIH/NCATS UL1TR002553.
- Competing interests
- The authors declared no conflict of interest and reported no sponsor role.
Project support
Founded and supported by Resilio.
Revision history
- · v0.3
Added the three dynamic approaches, 27-study composition and validation limits for routine clinical use.