P.P.CHIEH1, L.GE1, W.F.YIP1, E.S.S.CHUA1, R.M.H.HO2, E.Y.CHUA3, S.THAM4, I.Y.O.LEONG5, A.H.Y.HO2, W.S.TAN1
National Healthcare Group HQ1, Nanyang Technological University2, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital3, Woodlands Health4, Tan Tock Seng Hospital5
The study of resilience has gain traction during the recent years as societies seek greater understanding about how individuals regain healthy functioning from a disruptive health event. We aim to examine whether the level of personal resilience is influenced by exposure to clients’ health-related crises during work.
The 33-item Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) which evaluates six protective dimensions of resilience (Perception of the Self, Planned Future, Social Competence, Family Cohesion, Social Resources and Structured Style ) in adults was completed by 32 community-dwelling adults (CAs) and 53 healthcare and social care professionals (HSCPs) who participated in a qualitative study on health resilience. Each dimension score was compared between CA and HP using Independent t-test.
The participants were mainly Chinese (CAs: 63%; HSCPs: 87%), females (CAs: 72%; HSCPs: 78%). Majority of CAs were aged 50 years and above (78%) while HSCPs were mainly aged 21-40 years (78%). 72% of CAs had health adversities, much higher compared to HSCPs (11%). HSCPs scored lower in Social Competence (4.95 vs 5.72, p=0.002) and Perception of Self (5.39 vs 5.77, p=0.025), and scored higher in Family Cohesion (5.49 vs 4.94, p=0.026) and Social Resources (6.09 vs 5.62, p=0.026) than CAs. No significant difference was found in Structured Style and Planned Future.
HSCPs are constantly exposed to clients’ health-related crises during work as they support numerous clients in managing health-related adversities, and our results imply higher scores achieved in the interpersonal resilience dimensions. However, intrapersonal resilience dimensions could be less modifiable through their work experiences.