Resilience and risk, metal health and well-being: How do these concepts relate?

Abstract

Introduction

Resilience and well-being have become commonplace and increasingly used terms in a wide range of scientific as well as mental health political contexts.

Objectives

There is much confusion about the relationship of the two constructs: while some use well-being as a proxy measure of resilience, others treat one concept as a component of the other or see interchangeably one as the prerequisite of the other.

Aims

To study the definition of these two concepts in relation to each other.

Methods

Literature review.

Results

Both ‘resilience’ as well as ‘well-being’, have so far defied universal definition and common understanding of their respective measurement. Part of the confusion around these two concepts is the overlap in their components, in particular with regard to resilience and psychological well-being, and the lack of research on these concepts both by themselves, in relation to each other and in relation to other concepts like mental health, risk or protective (or promotive) factors.

Conclusion

Our critical and comparative inspection of both concepts highlights the need for more conceptual cross-sectional as well as longitudinal studies:

– to uncover the composition of these constructs and to reach agreement on their definition and measurement;

– to detect their potential neurobiological underpinnings;

– to reveal how they relate to each other;

– to determine the potential role of developmental and cultural peculiarities.

Thus, the use of the terms resilience and well-being should always be accompanied by a brief explanation of their respective meanings and theoretical framework.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.