Introduction
Disasters, large-scale crises, and prolonged adversities such as pandemics continue to threaten psychological well-being and social functioning worldwide. While the immediate impacts are often described in physical and economic terms, families also face profound disruptions in routines, roles, relationships, and sources of support. In many settings, families must manage uncertainty, resource loss, role reorganization, and emotional distress simultaneously—making the family unit a central context for both vulnerability and recovery.Reference Nadrowska, Błażek and Lewandowska-Walter 1 –Reference Leung, Shek and Tang 3 Because families represent the primary social unit for disaster response and recovery, strengthening family resilience has important implications for public health preparedness and community-level disaster risk reduction.
Against this backdrop, family resilience has become a key concept for understanding how families adapt when stressors intensify. In contrast to individual resilience, family resilience focuses on shared strengths and relational processes that help families reorganize, maintain cohesion, and preserve functioning under pressure. Major frameworks—including Walsh’s Family Resilience Framework, the ABC-X/Double ABCX model, and the Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response (FAAR) model—emphasize resilience as a dynamic system shaped by meaning-making, organizational patterns, and communication processes.Reference Gardiner, Mâsse and Iarocci 4 –Reference Cıhan and Var 6
Empirical studies further suggest that family resilience is closely tied to both child and parental outcomes during crises. In particular, parents’ emotional responses, communication, and coping behaviors frequently predict children’s adjustment. Supportive parenting and predictable routines tend to buffer children from crisis-related stress, whereas exposure to parental distress and family conflict is linked to poorer coping and elevated risk for anxiety and depressive symptoms.Reference Rocchi, Ghidelli and Burro 7 –Reference Setiawan, Wardani and Theresia 9
In parallel, family-based psychosocial interventions grounded in resilience theory have been developed to strengthen coping capacity and support recovery. These programs commonly target communication, emotion regulation, problem-solving, and shared meaning-making, and have been applied across disasters, pandemics, and serious illness contexts. However, the evidence remains scattered across disciplines, crisis types, and study designs, making it difficult to draw a clear synthesis for research and practice. To address this gap, the present systematic review pursues 3 distinct but complementary objectives: (1) a conceptual synthesis mapping the theoretical frameworks used to explain family resilience in crisis contexts; (2) an empirical synthesis identifying consistently reported risk and protective factors across child, parental, and family-level psychosocial outcomes; and (3) an intervention synthesis mapping family-based psychosocial programs, their core components, and reported directional effects. This structured approach ensures clear separation between conceptual foundations, observational findings, and intervention evaluations, preventing conflation of research aims with synthesis outcomes.
For the purpose of this review, we define “large-scale crises” broadly to encompass not only acute-onset disasters (e.g., earthquakes, floods) but also prolonged stressors and sustained adversities (e.g., pandemics, serious childhood illness) that similarly disrupt family systems. Despite differences in onset speed, these contexts share critical features: they impose sustained psychosocial pressure, disrupt established routines and roles, and threaten family stability over extended periods. This inclusive scope allows us to synthesize family resilience processes across a continuum of crisis typologies, from sudden shocks to chronic strains.
Method
Overview
This review was structured around 3 pre-specified synthesis objectives to maintain methodological transparency and avoid overlap between aims and outcomes: (a) Conceptual synthesis: cataloguing and comparing theoretical frameworks guiding the literature; (b) Empirical synthesis: extracting and thematically organizing risk and protective factors associated with psychosocial outcomes; and (c) Intervention synthesis: mapping program components, delivery formats, and reported directional effects. Outcomes are reported separately from objectives to preserve analytical clarity and align with systematic reporting standards. Study quality was appraised using a mixed-methods approach: empirical quantitative studies were assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), qualitative components with COREQ criteria, and theoretical papers with conceptual clarity benchmarks. Appraisal results informed interpretation but did not serve as exclusion criteria, consistent with recommendations for inclusive synthesis in emerging fields.
Protocol and Reporting
Methods were specified a priori, including eligibility criteria, screening procedures, extraction fields, and the synthesis approach. Reporting follows PRISMA 2020 principles, and the study selection process is shown in Figure 1. A formal protocol was not registered in a public repository; however, methods—including eligibility criteria, screening procedures, and synthesis approach—were specified a priori and documented internally to minimize reporting bias.
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram illustrating the study selection process. Numbers reflect records identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the systematic review. Reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage are categorized and reported in the diagram.
Figure 1. Long description
The flowchart is organized into four vertical phases labeled on the left.
1. Identification phase. Top left box: Records identified through database searching (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) n = 2,846. Top right box: Additional records identified through other sources (reference lists) n = 214. Arrows from both boxes lead to the next phase.
2. Screening phase. Central box: Records after duplicates removed, screened (title/abstract) n = 2,372. An arrow points right to a box: Records excluded n = 2,086. A downward arrow leads to the next phase.
3. Eligibility phase. Central box: Full-text articles assessed for eligibility n = 286. An arrow points right to a large box: Full-text articles excluded, with reasons n = 244. Reasons listed are: Not family-focused - 98; Not crisis/disaster context - 74; No resilience/coping outcomes - 51; Methodological insufficiency - 21. A downward arrow leads to the final phase.
4. Included phase. Bottom central box: Final Paper n = 42.
Eligibility Criteria
We included peer-reviewed studies that reported theoretical frameworks, empirical findings (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods), and/or intervention evaluations (randomized or non-randomized) focused on family resilience or family coping. We excluded editorials, opinion pieces, conference abstracts without full text, dissertations/theses, and reports without sufficient methodological detail. Studies were eligible if they examined families or family subsystems (e.g., parent–child dyads) in contexts of natural disasters, large-scale crises (including COVID-19), or sustained adversity (e.g., childhood cancer or chronic illness) where family resilience processes were explicitly addressed. Studies were required to report at least one outcome relevant to child psychosocial outcomes, parental psychosocial outcomes, family functioning, or intervention effects. We explicitly included contexts of sustained adversity (e.g., serious illness) alongside acute disasters because the family resilience mechanisms required to adapt to long-term resource depletion and emotional strain are often theoretically and empirically analogous to those needed in disaster recovery. This approach ensures a comprehensive synthesis of resilience processes relevant to both sudden and prolonged large-scale disruptions.
Information Sources and Search Strategy
We searched three electronic databases—PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection—from inception to 31 March 2025. The search strategy combined controlled vocabulary (MeSH in PubMed, Keywords in Scopus/WoS) and free-text terms related to three conceptual domains: (1) family resilience or family coping, (2) disaster, pandemic, or large-scale crisis contexts, and (3) psychosocial interventions or outcomes. Search strings were adapted for each database syntax and are provided in full in Appendix A. We complemented electronic searches by manually screening reference lists of included reviews and key primary studies to identify additional eligible records. Screening and eligibility assessment were facilitated using Rayyan, with all decisions logged and exportable for audit.
Study Selection
All retrieved records were exported to Reference Manager, and duplicates were removed prior to screening. The study selection process followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and comprised four stages:
-
1. Identification: A total of 3,060 records were identified through database searching. After removing 474 duplicates, 2,372 unique records proceeded to title/abstract screening.
-
2. Screening: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or, if needed, adjudication by a third reviewer. At this stage, 2,086 records were excluded.
-
3. Eligibility: The remaining 286 full-text articles were retrieved and assessed independently by two reviewers for eligibility. Reasons for exclusion at this stage were systematically recorded (see Figure 1).
-
4. Inclusion: Following full-text assessment, 42 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The complete list of all included studies, along with their full bibliographic citations, study designs, and countries of origin, is provided in Supplementary Table 1.
Throughout the process, we standardized terminology: “screening” refers to title/abstract assessment; “eligibility assessment” refers to full-text evaluation; and “included studies” denotes the final set of 42 studies. The complete selection flow is illustrated in Figure 1.
Data Extraction and Synthesis
Data were extracted using a standardized form capturing study characteristics, context, unit of analysis, frameworks used, protective/risk factors, outcomes, and intervention components (where applicable). Given heterogeneity, we conducted narrative and thematic synthesis rather than meta-analysis. Outcomes were grouped into child psychosocial outcomes, parental psychosocial outcomes, family functioning, family coping processes, and intervention outcomes.
Result
The included evidence comprised theoretical, empirical, and intervention-based studies addressing family resilience and coping in disasters and large-scale crises. The literature covered both acute-onset events and prolonged stressors, including COVID-19 and serious illness contexts. Across studies, families were treated as interconnected systems, and outcomes were reported at both family and individual levels. Despite variation in study design and setting, the evidence converged around a shared set of frameworks, resilience processes, and psychosocial outcomes, which enabled structured synthesis (Tables 1–5). Detailed characteristics and full bibliographic citations for all 42 included studies are comprehensively documented in Supplementary Table 1. To orient readers to the integrated architecture of findings, we first present a conceptual synthesis figure (Figure 2) that maps the dynamic pathways linking family resilience processes to multi-level psychosocial outcomes.
Characteristics of the included evidence
Table 1. Long description
The table consists of seven rows across three columns.
1. Crisis context: Categories include natural disasters, large-scale crises, C O V I D 19 pandemic, and serious illness. The summary notes evidence spans acute and prolonged crises, with C O V I D 19 providing insights into sustained disruption.
2. Unit of analysis: Categories include family system, parent child dyad, and family subsystems. The summary emphasizes the family as an interconnected system.
3. Study types: Categories include theoretical frameworks, observational studies, and intervention trials including R C T evidence. The summary notes the integration of conceptual models with empirical findings.
4. Outcomes family level: Categories include family functioning, cohesion, flexibility, routines, communication, and psychosocial stress. The summary identifies functioning and stress as core outcomes.
5. Outcomes individual level: Categories include child coping, parental distress, anxiety, depression, and burnout. The summary states parental response predicts child outcomes.
6. Measures or tools: Categories include family resilience measures like the Family Resilience Assessment Scale and brief pandemic measures. The summary notes tools assess resilience domains and intervention change.
7. Timing: Categories include pre-crisis preparedness, during crisis response, and post-crisis recovery. The summary supports both prevention and recovery applications.
Core theoretical frameworks and their mechanisms
Table 2. Long description
The table consists of four columns: Framework/model, Core constructs/processes, Mechanism emphasized, and Typical application in the reviewed literature.
* Row 1: Walsh’s Family Resilience Framework. Core constructs include (1) Belief systems (meaning-making, optimism, spirituality), (2) Organizational patterns (flexibility, connectedness, access to resources), and (3) Communication (clarity, emotional expression, collaborative problem-solving). The mechanism is family adaptation through coordinated meaning, reorganization, and communication. It is applied as a comprehensive model for resilience-oriented assessment and intervention design.
* Row 2: A B C-X/Double A B C X. Core constructs are A: Stressor event; B: Resources; C: Perceptions; X: Crisis. The mechanism states that crisis and adaptation depend on resources and appraisal of stressors. It explains why similar stressors produce different outcomes.
* Row 3: F A A R (Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response). Core constructs include an adjustment phase (multi-level assessment) and an adaptation phase (problem-solving and coping). The mechanism distinguishes short-term adjustment from longer-term adaptation. It is used for identifying modifiable factors for resilience.
* Row 4: Systemic resilience perspective. Core constructs view the family as an interdependent system where stress spreads. The mechanism emphasizes that recovery outcomes depend on whole-system beliefs, values, and behaviors. It supports family-level intervention and assessment.
Thematic synthesis of protective factors, risk factors, and associated psychosocial outcomes. Terminology aligns with the narrative Results section: “protective/risk factors” refer to family-level processes; “outcomes” are reported at child, parental, and family levels
Table 3. Long description
The table consists of four columns: Theme, Protective factors consistently reported, Risk factors consistently reported, and Outcomes associated with higher family resilience.
* Parenting and child adjustment: Protective factors include warmth, support, consistency, predictability, positive coping modeling, re-establishing safety and routines, and open communication. Risk factors include child exposure to parental distress, distressing talk at home, and disrupted routines without restoration. Outcomes include better child coping capacity and reduced vulnerability to post-crisis distress.
* Family relational functioning: Protective factors include cohesiveness, constructive communication, effective conflict resolution, and caregiver-child proximity. Risk factors include high conflict, unclear communication, emotional suppression, and isolation. Outcomes include reduced trauma impact, stronger family bonds, and improved adjustment.
* Meaning-making and belief systems: Protective factors include positive meaning-making, coherent narrative, optimism, and spirituality or transcendence. Risk factors include helplessness framing, fragmented meaning, and chronic uncertainty without coping structure. Outcomes include higher adaptation and stability during prolonged crises.
* Organizational flexibility and resources: Protective factors include flexible roles, access to social support networks, community resources, routines re-creation, and personal space. Risk factors include resource loss, economic disruption, weak social support, and rigid roles. Outcomes include lower stress or burnout and higher family functioning.
* Resilience as buffer or moderator: Protective factors state that high family resilience moderates stress pathways from parents to children. Risk factors state that low resilience amplifies the effect of parental distress on child maladaptation. Outcomes include lower anxiety, depression, and stress, and fewer behavioral, emotional, or peer problems in children.
Family-based psychosocial interventions: components and reported effects (evidence map)
Table 4. Long description
The table consists of five columns and four rows of data.
Row 1: Resilience-enhancing family programs. Components include stress management, emotion regulation, collaborative goal-setting, problem-solving, and a coping toolkit. Targeted domains are communication, problem-solving, belief systems, and organizational regulation. Reported effects are generally beneficial for child outcomes and family psychosocial stress. Implementation notes state suitability for pre- and post-assessment.
Row 2: Family Resilience and Coping Intervention (f R C I) in C O V I D 19 context. Components focus on family coping and resilience strengthening. Targeted domains are multi-domain system-level resilience. Reported effects show reduced family psychosocial stress. Implementation notes recommend adoption by health and disaster agencies.
Row 3: Clinical family resilience programs for serious illness. Components are tailored strategies for biopsychosocial and spiritual challenges. Targeted domains include belief systems, communication, and organizational adaptation. Reported effects show improved coping and family functioning. Implementation notes highlight transferability to chronic medical crises.
Row 4: Social work resilience-based services. Components include collaborative empowerment and family-centered assessment. Targeted domains focus on system-level empowerment. Reported effects include strengthened family bonds and reduced anxiety or depression. Implementation notes mention compatibility with diverse practice models.
Outcome direction of family resilience, coping processes, and family-based psychosocial interventions across included studies
Table 5. Long description
The table is organized into five primary outcome domains, each with three sub-rows for Improved, Neutral, and Worse directions of effect.
* Child psychosocial outcomes: Improved effects show high consistency, linking resilience to better coping and lower distress. Neutral effects have low consistency. Worse effects are rare and linked to parental distress rather than resilience processes.
* Parental psychosocial outcomes: Improved effects show moderate to high consistency, showing lower stress and depression during crises like C O V I D 19. Neutral effects are moderate, often occurring when economic stressors are unmitigated. Worse effects are rare.
* Family functioning outcomes: Improved effects show high consistency in cohesion and problem-solving. Neutral effects are low. Worse effects were not reported.
* Family coping processes: Improved effects show high consistency for coordinated strategies like cognitive reframing. Neutral effects are low. Worse effects were not reported.
* Family-based psychosocial interventions: Improved effects show high consistency in randomized trials for reducing stress and strengthening relationships. Neutral effects are moderate due to limited exposure. Worse effects were not reported.
Notes: (1) Outcome direction reflects authors’ conclusions and synthesized trends; (2) “Consistency” denotes degree of agreement across studies, not numerical frequency; (3) Terminology (protective/risk factors, outcome domains) is standardized with the narrative Results section to facilitate cross-referencing.
Integrated framework of family resilience in crises. Solid arrows (→) indicate directional pathways; bidirectional arrows (↔) represent reciprocal relationships within the dynamic family system; dashed lines on sides denote contextual moderators (culture, socioeconomic status, and policy environment) that influence all levels of the framework.
Figure 2. Long description
The flowchart is organized into four vertical levels with lateral moderators.
1. Top Level: CRISIS CONTEXT. A gray box containing the text Acute disasters, Pandemics, Prolonged adversity. A downward arrow points to the next level.
2. Second Level: DYNAMIC FAMILY SYSTEM. A large blue box containing three interconnected sub-components:
* A) Belief Systems
* B) Flexibility and Resources
* C) Communication
Bidirectional arrows connect A to B and B to C, indicating reciprocal relationships. Three downward arrows lead to the next level.
3. Third Level: KEY MEDIATOR: PARENTING PATHWAYS. A yellow box containing three bullet points: Warmth/Support, Consistency, and Coping Modeling. Three downward arrows lead to the final level.
4. Bottom Level: OUTCOMES. Three separate green boxes arranged horizontally:
* CHILD OUTCOMES
* PARENTAL OUTCOMES
* FAMILY OUTCOMES
5. Lateral Framing: On both the left and right sides of the central flow, dashed vertical brackets enclose the middle sections. These are labeled CONTEXTUAL MODERATORS (Culture, S E S, Policy), indicating their influence across the framework.
The characteristics of the included evidence are summarized in Table 1. The reviewed literature covered a wide range of crisis contexts, including acute-onset natural disasters, large-scale societal crises, the COVID-19 pandemic, and serious illness contexts such as childhood cancer and chronic disease. This allowed examination of family resilience processes across both sudden and prolonged stressors. Across all contexts, studies consistently treated the family system as the primary unit of analysis rather than focusing exclusively on individuals. Research designs included theoretical frameworks, empirical observational studies, and intervention trials, including randomized controlled trials. Outcomes were assessed at both the family level (e.g., cohesion, communication, routines, psychosocial stress) and the individual level (e.g., child coping and mental health, parental distress). Measurement approaches frequently referenced established family resilience instruments or brief resilience measures adapted for crisis and pandemic settings. Findings spanned the full crisis timeline, including pre-crisis preparedness, crisis response, and post-crisis recovery.
To ensure clarity and consistency in reporting, we adopt standardized terminology throughout the Results section:
-
1. “Protective factors” refer to family-level processes or resources associated with improved psychosocial outcomes.
-
2. “Risk factors” denote processes or conditions linked to poorer adjustment or heightened vulnerability.
-
3. “Outcomes” are reported at three levels: child psychosocial outcomes, parental psychosocial outcomes, and family functioning.
These terms are used consistently across the narrative synthesis and Tables 3–5 to facilitate cross-referencing and interpretation.
The core theoretical frameworks identified across the reviewed studies are presented in Table 2. Three models dominated the literature: Walsh’s Family Resilience Framework, the ABC-X/Double ABCX model, and the Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response (FAAR) model. Walsh’s framework was most frequently applied and emphasized adaptation through coordinated belief systems, organizational patterns, and communication processes. The ABC-X and Double ABCX models highlighted the interaction between stressors, family resources, and perceptions in determining crisis and adaptation outcomes. The FAAR model distinguished short-term adjustment processes from longer-term adaptation mechanisms and was often used in prevention-oriented research. In addition, a systemic resilience perspective was evident across studies, conceptualizing the family as an interdependent system in which stress affecting one member generates responses throughout the entire family. Collectively, these frameworks provided a shared conceptual basis for understanding family adaptation across diverse crisis contexts. To synthesize the convergent findings across theoretical and empirical studies, we developed an integrated conceptual framework (Figure 2) that visualizes how family resilience processes interact as a dynamic system in crisis contexts. This framework maps the pathways from foundational resilience domains through parenting mechanisms to multi-level psychosocial outcomes, while acknowledging contextual moderators and potential intervention touchpoints.
The thematic synthesis (Table 3) identified 5 recurring domains linking family resilience processes to psychosocial outcomes. Across studies, parenting behaviors emerged as a central protective factor: warmth, consistency, positive coping modelling, and the re-establishment of safety and routines were consistently associated with better child adjustment. Conversely, exposure to parental distress and distressing family communication functioned as risk factors for poorer child outcomes. At the relational level, family cohesiveness, constructive communication, and effective conflict resolution were repeatedly associated with reduced trauma impact and stronger family bonds. In contrast, high conflict, emotional suppression, and social isolation were linked to maladaptive outcomes. Meaning-making processes—including optimism, coherent narrative construction, and spirituality—supported stability during prolonged crises, whereas helplessness framing and fragmented narratives increased vulnerability. Finally, organizational flexibility and access to social/community resources further distinguished resilient families from those experiencing sustained distress. As illustrated in Figure 2, these protective and risk factors do not operate in isolation but interact through reciprocal pathways—for example, effective communication strengthens organizational flexibility, which in turn supports positive meaning-making.
Family-based psychosocial interventions (Table 4) consistently targeted multiple resilience domains, including communication, emotion regulation, problem-solving, and meaning-making. Across intervention types, reported effects were directionally positive for child outcomes, parental distress, and family functioning, with no studies reporting adverse effects. The consistency of outcome direction across domains is summarized in Table 5. Improvements were highly consistent for child psychosocial outcomes, family functioning, and family coping processes. Parental outcomes showed predominantly positive effects, though neutral findings were reported when structural stressors (e.g., economic loss) remained unmitigated. Importantly, no studies reported worsening outcomes attributable to family resilience processes or family-based interventions—a finding that aligns with the non-pathologizing orientation of resilience frameworks.
The direction and consistency of reported outcomes across domains are presented in Table 5. Improvements were consistently reported for child psychosocial outcomes, family functioning, and family coping processes, with high agreement across studies. Parental psychosocial outcomes also showed predominantly positive effects, particularly in prolonged crisis contexts, although neutral findings were reported in situations where structural stressors remained unresolved. Neutral effects were generally limited to studies where family resilience processes were not explicitly targeted or where intervention exposure was brief. Importantly, no studies reported worsening outcomes attributable to family resilience processes or family-based psychosocial interventions.
The model illustrates how crisis contexts (acute disasters, pandemics, prolonged adversity) impact the dynamic family system, comprising 3 interconnected processes: (A) Belief Systems, (B) Flexibility & Resources, and (C) Communication. These system-level processes converge through the Key Mediator: Parenting Pathways (warmth/support, consistency, coping modeling), which subsequently shape psychosocial outcomes at child, parental, and family levels. Contextual moderators (culture, socioeconomic status, policy) influence all levels of the framework, as indicated by dashed lines. Overall, the results demonstrate that family resilience and coping processes are consistently associated with positive psychosocial outcomes across crisis contexts. The evidence highlights the central role of parenting, family relationships, organizational flexibility, and meaning-making, as well as the effectiveness of family-based psychosocial interventions in supporting adaptation and recovery.
Discussion
This systematic review synthesized evidence from 42 studies examining family resilience and family coping in the context of disasters, large-scale crises, and sustained adversity. Across diverse contexts and study designs, the findings suggest that family resilience is closely associated with psychosocial adaptation for children, parents, and the family system as a whole. Family resilience emerged as a dynamic and relational process rather than a fixed characteristic, with converging evidence across theoretical and empirical studies supporting its relevance in both acute and prolonged crises.Reference Aivalioti and Pezirkianidis 10 –Reference Qi and Yang 13 We interpret this convergence to indicate that family-level processes may serve as important correlates of adaptation, though causal pathways remain to be established through longitudinal research. The integrated framework (Figure 2) helps explain why family resilience functions as both a protective correlate and a potential moderator: when multiple domains (belief systems, communication, flexibility) are simultaneously strengthened, their synergistic effect may buffer stress transmission from parents to children more effectively than isolated interventions.
The reviewed literature strongly supports a systemic understanding of family resilience, in which adversity affecting one family member generates responses across the entire family system. Frameworks such as Walsh’s Family Resilience Framework, the ABC-X/Double ABCX model, and the FAAR model consistently emphasized the interaction between stressors, family resources, and shared meaning-making processes. This convergence across models strengthens confidence in family resilience as a robust conceptual framework for understanding adaptation across diverse crisis contexts.Reference Blair 14 –Reference Ronan, Crellin and Johnston 16
A consistent finding across the synthesized literature is the association between parenting processes and children’s psychosocial outcomes during and after crises. Observational studies repeatedly report that children’s adjustment tends to co-occur with parental emotional regulation, clear communication, and behavioral consistency.Reference Cıhan and Var 6 , Reference Walsh 8 , Reference Castiglioni and Gaj 17 While exposure to parental distress and distressing family communication was frequently associated with poorer child outcomes, parental warmth, predictability, and positive coping modelling were consistently reported as protective correlates. We interpret this pattern to suggest that parenting practices may serve as a key pathway through which family resilience influences child adaptation, though causal direction cannot be established from the current evidence base.
Beyond parenting, the synthesis highlights the importance of family relational functioning, including cohesion, communication quality, and conflict resolution skills. Families characterized by open emotional expression, collaborative problem-solving, and supportive relationships demonstrated greater capacity to buffer stress and reorganize effectively during adversity. In contrast, high conflict, emotional suppression, and social isolation consistently emerged as risk factors associated with poorer adjustment.Reference McDonald-Harker, Drolet and Sehgal 18 –Reference Hamall, Heard and Inder 21 Meaning-making processes were also identified as a critical component of family resilience, particularly in prolonged crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Families who were able to integrate crisis experiences into coherent narratives, maintain optimism, or draw on spiritual and cultural resources demonstrated greater stability and adaptation over time. Conversely, helplessness framing and chronic uncertainty without supportive meaning-making were associated with sustained distress.Reference Leung, Shek and Tang 3 , Reference Shoychet, Browne and Wade 22 –Reference Tan, Pinder and Bayoumi 24
The integrated framework (Figure 2) operationalizes these empirical patterns by mapping how macro-level family processes cascade through parenting pathways to shape multi-level outcomes. This explanatory synthesis moves beyond descriptive cataloguing to propose a testable mechanism: system-level resilience capacity → parental regulatory and communicative behaviors → child psychosocial adaptation. Consistent with Walsh’s Family Resilience Framework and the Double ABCX model, our findings suggest that appraisal (meaning-making) and resource mobilization (flexibility, communication) jointly determine whether parents respond to crisis with adaptive scaffolding or distress spillover. The consistency of this pathway across diverse crisis contexts strengthens confidence in its generalizability, while also highlighting parenting as a high-yield target for intervention.
Across several studies, family resilience appeared to operate not only as a direct protective correlate but also as a potential moderator of psychosocial risk. Higher reported family resilience was associated with a weaker statistical relationship between parental psychological distress and child maladaptation, suggesting a buffering pattern within the family system.Reference Rocchi, Ghidelli and Burro 7 , Reference Chow, Tang and Siu 20 , Reference Hamall, Heard and Inder 21 , Reference Nadrowska, Błażek and Lewandowska-Walter 25 , Reference Saltzman, Lester and Beardslee 26 We interpret this pattern to indicate that resilient family systems may interrupt the transmission of crisis-related stress by redistributing emotional load, maintaining predictable routines, and reframing threat appraisals. However, because most evidence derives from cross-sectional or short-term longitudinal designs, the temporal ordering of these processes remains inferential. Rigorous longitudinal mediation/moderation models are needed to establish whether resilience processes precede, co-occur with, or amplify parenting-mediated adaptation over time.
The review identified an overall beneficial trend for family-based psychosocial interventions grounded in resilience theory. Programs targeting communication, emotion regulation, collaborative problem-solving, and meaning-making generally reported directional improvements in family psychosocial stress and child outcomes.Reference Boqiong-Tian, Renhong-Shen and Rujun-Huang 2 , Reference Simard, Roberge and St-Pierre 27 –Reference Kuang, Wang and Yu 29 Importantly, none of the included intervention studies reported adverse effects, which tentatively supports the acceptability and low-risk profile of family-based approaches in crisis contexts. We caution, however, that given methodological variability, small sample sizes, and limited long-term follow-up in many trials, these results should be interpreted as indicative of promising trends rather than definitive evidence of causal effectiveness. Future implementation should therefore be accompanied by rigorous evaluation to establish scalability and contextual appropriateness.
The applicability of family resilience frameworks across diverse contexts, including disaster response, pandemics, and serious illness, underscores their translational potential. Clinical and social work interventions applying resilience-oriented approaches demonstrated benefits not only in disaster settings but also in families coping with chronic illness, suggesting that core resilience processes may generalize across different forms of adversity.Reference Ronan, Crellin and Johnston 16 , Reference McDonald-Harker, Drolet and Sehgal 18 , Reference Londoño, Orrego and Monsalve 30 , Reference Durcan and Yavuz 31
To translate these findings into practice, we map the synthesized evidence onto key domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Intervention characteristics: Family resilience programs demonstrate high adaptability across crisis phases, with core components (communication training, meaning-making facilitation, and parenting support) showing transferability across acute and prolonged stressors. Outer setting: Alignment with existing disaster management, public health, and social service frameworks can facilitate integration, particularly when tailored to local cultural norms and resource constraints. Inner setting: Feasibility within community health centers, schools, and primary care settings is supported by the modular nature of resilience-oriented components, which can be embedded into routine psychosocial screenings or psychological first aid protocols. Process: Successful implementation will likely require co-design with affected families, phased training for frontline providers, and mixed-methods evaluation to monitor fidelity and contextual adaptation. This implementation lens highlights that scaling family resilience approaches depends not only on evidence of benefit, but also on systemic readiness, workforce capacity, and culturally responsive delivery models.
Future research should prioritize longitudinal designs to clarify causal pathways linking family resilience processes to psychosocial outcomes, as well as the development and validation of standardized resilience measures suitable for diverse cultural and crisis contexts. Further evaluation of family-based interventions in low-resource and disaster-prone settings is also needed to enhance equity and global applicability.Reference Walsh 8 , Reference Hafstad, Haavind and Jensen 19 –Reference Hamall, Heard and Inder 21 , Reference Kadiri 32
In summary, the synthesized evidence suggests that family resilience is closely associated with psychosocial adaptation during disasters and large-scale crises. The literature consistently points to interconnected processes—meaning-making, organizational flexibility, and communication—as correlates of reduced distress and improved family functioning. Family-based psychosocial interventions show overall positive trends and no reported harm, positioning them as a potentially valuable complement to individual-level services in disaster preparedness and recovery.Reference Vladislav, Marc and Paica 12 –Reference Blair 14 , Reference Wyman, Cowen and Work 33 , Reference Perak, McDonald and Conti 34 From a practice perspective, we suggest that integrating family-focused approaches into crisis response frameworks may help strengthen informal support systems. These interpretations, however, are grounded in heterogeneous observational and intervention data; rigorous, longitudinal trials are required to establish causal efficacy and guide scalable implementation.
Limitation
Several limitations of this systematic review should be acknowledged. First, the included studies exhibited substantial heterogeneity across multiple dimensions: study designs ranged from cross-sectional observational studies to randomized controlled trials; crisis contexts varied from acute-onset natural disasters to prolonged adversities such as pandemics and serious illness; and outcome measures employed diverse instruments with differing psychometric properties. This methodological and conceptual heterogeneity precluded quantitative meta-analysis and necessitated a narrative and thematic synthesis approach. Second, while narrative synthesis allows for the integration of diverse evidence types and the exploration of contextual patterns, it has inherent limitations. Specifically, it does not permit statistical estimation of effect sizes, formal testing of between-study heterogeneity, or robust assessment of small-study effects. Consequently, the directional trends reported (e.g., “overall beneficial” for interventions) should be interpreted as descriptive syntheses of reported findings rather than pooled quantitative estimates. Third, the potential for publication bias warrants consideration. Studies reporting statistically significant or positive associations between family resilience processes and psychosocial outcomes may be more likely to be published than those reporting null or negative findings. This possibility is particularly relevant for the intervention synthesis, where the absence of reported adverse effects may reflect under-reporting rather than definitive evidence of safety. We attempted to mitigate this risk by including grey literature searches and reference-list screening, but we cannot exclude the possibility that unpublished or non-English language studies may have influenced the observed patterns. Fourth, the generalizability of findings is constrained by the geographic and socioeconomic distribution of included studies. The majority of evidence originated from high- and middle-income countries, limiting confidence in the applicability of identified resilience processes to low-resource, disaster-prone, or culturally distinct settings where family structures, support systems, and coping repertoires may differ substantially. Finally, most included observational studies employed cross-sectional or short-term longitudinal designs, which preclude definitive causal inference regarding the directionality of relationships between family resilience processes and psychosocial outcomes. While theoretical frameworks and pattern consistency across studies support plausible mechanistic pathways (e.g., parenting as a mediator), rigorous longitudinal and experimental research is needed to establish temporal precedence and causal mechanisms. Despite these limitations, the convergence of findings across theoretical, observational, and intervention-based evidence—spanning diverse crisis contexts and methodological approaches—strengthens confidence in the central role of family resilience as a correlate of psychosocial adaptation. The transparent acknowledgment of these constraints is intended to guide cautious interpretation and to highlight priorities for future research.
By synthesizing theoretical, observational, and intervention evidence into a unified explanatory model, this review advances the literature beyond fragmented descriptions toward a coherent architecture of family adaptation in crises. The convergence of findings underscores that family resilience is not a single trait but a coordinated system whose protective and moderating effects are most robust when multiple domains operate synergistically. This systems perspective has direct implications for practice: interventions that simultaneously target communication, meaning-making, and parenting regulation are likely to yield stronger adaptive outcomes than single-domain approaches. Future research should prioritize longitudinal, multi-informant designs to test the proposed mechanistic pathway and to identify threshold effects at which resilience processes fail to buffer cumulative stress.
Commitment to Evidence Currency
Given the rapidly evolving literature on family resilience in crisis contexts—particularly following the surge in pandemic, climate-related disaster, and displacement research—we commit to maintaining this synthesis as a living review. An updated protocol, expanded search strategy, and cumulative evidence map will be hosted on the Open Science Framework (OSF) and refreshed biennially. This approach will capture emerging evidence on digital family interventions, post-pandemic adaptation trajectories, and resilience processes in low-resource settings, ensuring that policy and practice guidelines remain informed by the most current empirical base.
Conclusion
This systematic review synthesized evidence from 42 studies and indicates that family resilience is a central determinant of psychosocial adaptation during disasters, large-scale crises, and sustained adversity. Across contexts, family resilience operates through interconnected processes of meaning-making, organizational flexibility, and effective communication, shaping outcomes for children, parents, and overall family functioning. The findings highlight the pivotal role of parenting and family relational processes in buffering the impact of crisis-related stress and in supporting recovery and adaptive growth. Family-based psychosocial interventions grounded in resilience theory show consistent benefits and no evidence of harm, supporting their integration into disaster preparedness, response, and recovery frameworks. Overall, strengthening family resilience represents a promising and scalable strategy to mitigate the long-term psychosocial consequences of crises and to promote sustainable family and community well-being.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2026.10423.
Data availability statement
All data analyzed in this study are derived from published articles included in the systematic review. Extracted data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency. Funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation. The authors gratefully acknowledge Ronal Surya Aditya for his valuable assistance and contributions to the manuscript preparation and research process.
Author contribution
Mufarika: Conceptualization, methodology, literature search, data extraction, formal analysis, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, supervision. Abdul Hadi Furqoni: Methodology, data curation, formal analysis, visualization, writing—review and editing. Arief Hargono: Conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing—review and editing, project administration.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests relevant to the content of this systematic review.
Ethical standards
Ethical approval was not required for this study as it involved secondary analysis of published literature and did not include human participants.
