The current paper examines whether resilience-promoting interventions lead to increased self-reported resilience relative to a control group. The literature search was conducted using terms “resilience intervention” OR “promoting resilience” OR “promoting resiliency” OR “resilience-based intervention”. A total of 83 studies were included in the meta-analysis and systematic review. The quality of studies was evaluated based on sample size, appropriateness of statistical analyses, and protocol for intervention adoption. Moderation models examined effects of study characteristics (study rigour), delivery characteristics (mode of intervention [e.g., self-guided], mode of delivery [e.g., in-person] and format [e.g., group-based]), and resilience characteristics (type of resilience [e.g., coping] and resilience process) on outcomes. Findings indicated that resilience-promoting interventions significantly improved resilience relative to controls, Hedges’ g = 0.72 (SE = 0.07, 95% CI = [0.59, 0.85], Z = 10.61, p < .001). These effects were heterogeneous, Q(102) = 1232.57, p < .001. Mode of intervention, resilience type, and resilience process emerged as important moderators. Results of the current meta-analysis support the effectiveness of resilience interventions, while positing considerations for intervention design and implementation. Clinical and research implications are discussed.

目前的论文研究了相对于对照组而言，促进复原力的干预措施是否会导致自我报告的复原力增加。使用术语“弹性干预”或“促进弹性”或“促进弹性”或“基于弹性的干预”进行文献检索。共有 83 项研究被纳入荟萃分析和系统评价。研究质量根据样本量、统计分析的适当性和干预采用方案进行评估。调节模型检查了研究特征（研究严谨性）、交付特征（干预模式 [例如，自我引导]、交付模式 [例如，面对面] 和形式 [例如，基于小组]）和弹性特征的影响（复原力类型[例如，应对]和复原力过程）对结果的影响。结果表明，相对于对照，恢复力促进干预显着提高了恢复力，Hedges' g = 0.72（SE = 0.07，95% CI = [0.59, 0.85]，Z = 10.61，p < .001）。这些影响是异质的，Q(102) = 1232.57，p < .001。干预方式、复原力类型和复原力过程成为重要的调节因素。当前荟萃分析的结果支持复原力干预的有效性，同时提出了干预设计和实施的考虑因素。讨论了临床和研究意义。和韧性过程成为重要的调节因素。当前荟萃分析的结果支持复原力干预的有效性，同时提出了干预设计和实施的考虑因素。讨论了临床和研究意义。和韧性过程成为重要的调节因素。当前荟萃分析的结果支持复原力干预的有效性，同时提出了干预设计和实施的考虑因素。讨论了临床和研究意义。