Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: This review will summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of evidence-based interventions in promoting resilience among nursing students. INTRODUCTION: Nursing involves high-stress environments, substantial workloads, and emotional strain. Amid these challenges, nursing resilience is vital for ensuring the quality of patient care and protecting nurses' well-being. Nursing students are introduced to these challenging practice environments through both their coursework and their clinical placements, preparing them for the realities they will encounter after graduation. Understanding interventions that promote nursing students' resilience during their nursing education will help support their preparedness for today's challenging health care systems. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This review will include research syntheses about evidence-based interventions to promote resilience among prelicensure professional nursing students. This can include those in diploma, associate, baccalaureate, or prelicensure master of science nursing programs. Comparisons will be made across evidence-based interventions. This review will consider systematic reviews that include the primary outcome of resilience and possible secondary outcomes of emotional well-being, academic satisfaction, and retention. METHODS: A comprehensive search will be carried out across CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Ovid), JBI Best Practice, Embase (Ovid), and Epistemonikos. The search will have no limitations on language, geographical location, or publication date. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. The selected reviews will be appraised using the JBI critical appraisal instrument for systematic reviews and research syntheses. Data from each review will be extracted using the JBI data extraction tool. The review characteristics and findings will be presented in a narrative summary and tables. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251111264.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Horan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: