Interventions to build resilience among young people A literature review

attribution of positive results to the specific strengths/resiliency interventions. Common themes of
the studies were personal (i.e. internal state including beliefs and values) competency, coping
strategies, social competency, pro-social involvement and cultural identity. Interventions were
intended to either increase the number of strengths or provide young people with support to use
their existing strengths to deal with issues.
Leve et al. (2012) report that eight interventions offer promise for improving a range of outcomes
for foster children, with results from most studies producing effects of small to moderate sizes that
typically decrease over time. Findings from this review need to be interpreted with caution since its
quality was ranked as low, and the authors acknowledge that the selection criteria used favoured
studies reporting positive intervention effects and long-term follow-up data is lacking.
As noted above, Stewart and Wang (2012) concluded that that the evidence related to HPS approach
is limited but promising. They considered programs that targeted school staff and students to be
effective but call for further examination of impact on parents and for further research. Again, these
findings need to be interpreted with caution since this was ranked as a low-quality review.
Also noted above, the moderate quality meta-analysis of the PRP (Brunwasser et al., 2009) found
that participants reported fewer depressive symptoms at post-intervention and follow-up
assessments compared with those receiving no intervention (producing effect sizes ranging from
0.11 to 0.21). However, there was no evidence that PRP was more effective than active control
conditions. The authors concluded that PRP’s effects on depressive disorders may be smaller than
those reported in a larger meta-analysis of depression prevention programs for older adolescents
and adults. They suggest that future PRP research should examine whether PRP’s effects on
depressive symptoms lead to clinically meaningful benefits for its participants, whether the program
is cost-effective, whether cognitive behavioural skills mediate program effects, and whether PRP is
effective when delivered under real-world conditions.
Characteristics of primary studies
Of the 28 records of primary studies that met criteria for inclusion in this review, one record of
which reported findings from two studies (Gerson & Fernandez, 2013), the majority of studies were
conducted in the US (n = 12) including one that contained data from both the US and Japan,
followed by Australia (n = 5), Canada (n = 2) and the Netherlands (n = 2). One study was conducted
in each of the following countries: China, the UK, Iran, Germany, Scotland, South Africa and Korea.
The number of participants in the studies ranged from 11 to 2844, with most studies (n=13) having
less than 100 participants. In general, participants in the studies ranged in age from 3 to 24 years,
with the exception of the second part of one study (Gerson & Fernandez, 2013), in which
participants ranged in age from 17 to 50 years. In terms of the quality of the studies, we rated 11 of
the 29 primary studies as level II, seven as level III-2, four as level III-1, four as level IV and three as
level III-3, using the NHMRC evidence hierarchy (see Appendix A). With the exception of six studies,
which were published before or in 2008 (de la Rosa et al., 2005; Fraser & Pakenham, 2008; Green et
al., 2007; Grunstein & Nutbeam, 2007; Hipke et al., 2002; Tuttle et al., 2006), the majority of studies
were published more recently, from 2010 to 2014. All of the studies reported that their aim was to
examine the effect of some sort of intervention on the resilience, psychological symptoms (e.g.
depression, anxiety, trauma, etc.) or psychological strengths (e.g. self-esteem, proactive coping,
social connectedness, etc.) of young people.
Interventions to build resilience among young people: a literature review 15