Cognitive mechanisms and resilience in UK-based general practitioners: cross-sectional findings

5Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Being a general practitioner (GP) is a stressful occupation, and the strain GPs are under can have negative effects on their psychological well-being, as well as on the patients' experience of healthcare. Resilience can help buffer against this and is a dynamic process by which one can cope with adversity and stress. Aims: This study aimed to identify modifiable cognitive mechanisms related to resilience in GPs, specifically interpretation bias and cognitive reappraisal. Methods: One hundred and fourteen GPs completed an online cross-sectional correlational study. This comprised questionnaires assessing resilience, emotional distress, work environment and cognitive mechanisms (emotion regulation), as well as a task assessing interpretation bias. Results: Resilience of GPs was negatively correlated with measures of emotional distress. Furthermore, resilience was positively correlated with positive interpretation bias (r = 0.60, ρ = 0.60, P < 0.01) and cognitive reappraisal (r = 0.39, ρ = 0.40, P < 0.01). In a hierarchical regression, positive interpretation bias (B = 0.25, SE B = 0.06, β = 0.39, P < 0.01) was a significant independent predictor of resilience when controlling for depression, anxiety and stress. Conclusions: This is the first study to establish an association between resilience and positive interpretation bias and cognitive reappraisal in GPs. Future research should use longitudinal designs to determine if they have a causal role in promoting resilience, and importantly whether interventions focusing on these processes may foster resilience in less resilient GPs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kaleta, F. O., Kristensen, C. B., Duncan, M., Crutchley, P., Kerr, P., & Hirsch, C. R. (2023). Cognitive mechanisms and resilience in UK-based general practitioners: cross-sectional findings. Occupational Medicine, 73(2), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqad016

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free