Lived experience perspectives on resilience, mental health, and wellbeing: a focus group study of individual, social, and systemic determinants in Aotearoa New Zealand
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background: Resilience research increasingly recognises the influence of cultural context and community perspective on adaptive responses to adversity. However, many resilience indices embody theoretical underpinnings that are not necessarily congruent with lived experiences, especially in relation to culturally diverse groups. This study explores resilience factors through community narratives of diversity in Aotearoa New Zealand. Methods: We conducted nine focus groups (N=92) across urban and rural contexts with 48% of participants identifying as Māori or Pacific Islanders. The twelve resilience indicators were explored through the participant narratives promoted by vignettes and semi-structured discussions using a thematic analysis approach. Cultural protocols were embedded in all aspects including partnering with Māori, Pacific Islander and lived experience advisors. Findings: Five themes emerged: (1) Personal resilience factors; (2) health and wellbeing; (3) social capital and connection; (4) systemic and structural factors; and (5) cultural and environmental resources. Participants contested Western individualised models of resilience by demonstrating that agency emerges through complex assemblages of relationships across human, more-than-human, ancestral, and environmental domains, rather than from individual capacity alone. Conclusion: In this study, resilience did not emerge as an individual capacity, but as something grounded in relational networks situated within cultural, spiritual and ecological contexts. These findings suggest a need for transformational approaches to resilience assessment and intervention by policymakers and clinicians, which attend to structural determinants as well as individual coping capacity. Effective interventions are likely to be more acceptable and meaningful when they are community-grounded, culturally embedded and recognise resilience as a collective resource, rather than only individualised adaption to inequitable conditions.