Background: At the inter of old age and illness, older adults with life-threatening illnesses (LTI) are a group who often show resilience and seek validation of life, acceptance, and integration of past and now, even under the fear of loss, suffering, and dying evoked by life adversities. Life review has been widely conducted to help older adults enhance well-being and cope with burdens. Spirituality is an important part of an older adult' overall well-being, especially for those with LTI. However, few review studies examined the effectiveness of life review interventions on psychospiritual outcomes among this population. The aim of the study was to examine the effectiveness of life review on psychospiritual well-being among older adults with LTI.Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration was conducted. Database searches included PubMed, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, the Campbell Library, EBSCO, CNKI, and the Airiti Library up to March 2020. Gray literature and reference lists from relevant articles were also searched and reviewed.Results: In total, 34 studies were included in the systematic review and the meta-analysis for outcomes of depression (n = 24), quality-of-life (QOL) (n = 10), anxiety (n = 5), life satisfaction (n = 3), mood (n = 3), apathy (n = 2), and general well-being (n = 2). Other psychospiritual outcome measures included spirituality, self-esteem, meaning in life, hope, and some multi-dimensional instruments. The studies greatly varied in program design, content, format, length, and more. Although with high heterogeneity, meta-analysis results demonstrated standardized mean differences in favor of life review in decreasing depression, anxiety, negative mood, and increasing positive mood and QOL compared with the control group.Conclusion: This review calls for including more psycho-spiritual well-being measures among interventions for older adults with LTI, as well as studies with rigorous designs in future research.

Background: Neurocognitive disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), dementia, and Alzheimer's disease, not only harm people's cognitive function but also lead to negative emotions, poor quality of life (QOL), and unsatisfactory level of well-being. Resilience can be defined as a dynamic and amendable process, which maintains or improves life satisfaction and quick recovery from own dilemma. However, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has thus far examined the effectiveness of resilience interventions among persons with neurocognitive disorders, and the results of RCTs were inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of resilience interventions on psychosocial outcomes among persons with neurocognitive disorders. Methods: Nine electronic Chinese and English databases (the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, Eric, JSTOR, CNKI, and WANGFANG) were searched through April 2021. Only RCTs were included, and the quality of the included studies was assessed by the Cochrane "Risk of Bias" tool. Meta-analysis was carried out on psychosocial outcomes, and heterogeneity was investigated by subgroup and sensitivity analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used for meta-analysis. Results: Fourteen RCT studies were identified, representing a total of 2,442 participants with neurocognitive disorders. The risk of bias was high or unclear for most included studies in the domains of allocation concealment, blinding participants, and interventionists. Meta-analysis showed that heterogeneity was low or moderate. There were significant differences in favor of resilience interventions compared with control on the outcome of QOL, using the Quality of Life-Alzheimer Disease scale (QOL-AD) [I 2 = 36%, standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.14, 95% CI (0.02, 0.26), p = 0.02], and no significant differences on depression, using the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) [I 2 = 41%, SMD = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.34, 0.05), p = 0.16], and neuropsychiatric symptoms using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) [I 2 = 62%, SMD = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.37, -0.16), p ≤ 0.46]. Conclusions: Resilience interventions had a significant benefit on QOL but no significant benefit on depression and neuropsychiatric behavioral symptoms. More evidence is needed to answer questions about how to implement resilience interventions and how to evaluate their effectiveness.