Physical Resilience in Older Adults: Systematic Review and Development of an Emerging Construct
Heather E. Whitson · Wei Duan-Porter · Kenneth E. Schmader · Miriam C. Morey · Harvey J. Cohen · Cathleen S. Colón-Emeric
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A · 2016
What the research tells us
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 & interpretation
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.
Study at a glance
- 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 / INTERVENTION / SUBJECT
- 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.
Cited on this site
Physiological Reserve
Resilience
Recovery Is Not Rest
What Is Resilience Nutrition?
Models of Adaptation: What Different Frameworks Explain
TAP Human Adaptation Framework
Are Recovery and Resilience the Same Thing?
Does Recovery Always Mean Returning to the Same Baseline?
How Are Physiological Reserve and Resilience Related?
What Counts as Evidence That Nutrition Supports Recovery?
What Does Your Wearable’s Recovery Score Actually Tell You?
Editorial & review record
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 ↗Scope of this reading note
The Duke-hosted author text, pages 489–495, was read through. Appendix 1's individual records remain to be checked.
- Study 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.
- Competing interests
- A separate competing-interest declaration was not identified in the consulted body text; this does not establish absence of interests.
Project support
Founded and supported by Resilio.
Revision history
- · v0.3
Added search/inclusion details, the number of definitions and funding, distinguishing conceptual synthesis from validation.