![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
This scoping review utilized the Resilience Portfolio Model (RPM) (Grych et al., 2015; Hamby et al., 2018) to explore the literature on occupational resilience among mental health helping professionals and helping professional students exposed to vicarious trauma. These professionals often face repeated exposure to the trauma of those they serve, posing threats to their resilience and occupational well-being. The RPM is a strengths-based framework examining protective factors and processes shaping resilience in individuals exposed to psychological trauma, categorizing resilience into regulatory, interpersonal-ecological, and meaning-making strengths.
Methods
Empirical research articles focusing on resilience, strengths, coping, and occupational well-being of helping professionals and students were included. The review focused on social workers and other mental health helping professionals exposed to vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue, secondary traumatic stress, and/or burnout. The search included peer-reviewed literature of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies published in English from 1990 to 2023 from multiple databases. Literature was searched between July and August 2023, guided by the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Meta-analyses and systematic reviews were reviewed for additional articles for inclusion. Conceptual articles, scoping reviews, and articles focused on doctors, nurses, other medical and veterinarian professionals, coaches, informal caregivers, first responders, and teachers were excluded.
Results
The first search yielded 198 unique articles. Ninety articles clearly not meeting the inclusion criteria were removed. Three authors conducted title and abstract screening of the remaining 108 articles. Two authors independently screened each article, with the first author resolving any disagreement regarding inclusion, resulting in 84 articles for full-text review. Following the full-text review, data from 35 articles were used for the scoping review.
The articles included quantitative (8), qualitative (13), mixed methods (1), cross-sectional survey (8), and longitudinal (3) studies from Europe, North America, Africa, Asia, and Australia. The helping professions studied included in- and pre-service social workers, child welfare workers, psychologists, counselors, and therapists in various settings. Interpersonal-ecological strengths were highlighted in 23 articles, promoting the importance of social interactions and support for helping professionals’ resilience. Individual regulatory strengths were detailed in 22 articles, promoting self-care, self-compassion, and self-awareness as significant contributors to resilience. Although less explored (18 articles), meaning-making emerged as a substantial contributor to resilience, providing joy, safety, and satisfaction extending beyond the work environment.
Conclusions and Implications
No research was found directly applying the RPM, but research was centered on the RPM dimensions of individual and interpersonal-ecological factors, with meaning-making gaining prominence in recent years. The identified gap in research emphasizes the need for comprehensive studies on the synergistic interaction of the individual and their environment, incorporating reflective practices to understand the meaning of the work. The RPM provides a multidimensional framework for guiding future research and intervention efforts to understand and promote the resilience of helping professionals. This scoping review calls for increased attention to the nuanced factors influencing the resilience of helping professionals. It underscores the importance of integrating the RPM into research and practice for a holistic understanding and enhancement of resilience in this vital workforce.