Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The multisystemic roots of South African child and youth resilience: A scoping review

Abstract

Introduction and objective

A multisystemic approach to researching resilience investigates resources across multiple systems, including biological, psychological, social, institutional, structural, environmental, and cultural systems, with special interest in how these resources co-act to enable better-than-expected outcomes among risk-exposed children and youth. This approach is an important step toward redressing neoliberal misinterpretations of resilience as a personal capacity. However, it is unclear how well a multisystemic approach is reflected in recent studies of child and youth resilience conducted in South Africa, a country where ongoing structural violence demands resilience from most children and youth. In response, this article reports a scoping review of South African child and youth resilience studies published between 2018 and 2023.

Methodology

The methodology aligned with the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews. The authors systematically scoped the available literature (n = 1309 records) to determine which resources from which systems were associated with the resilience of South African children and youth (birth to 29 years). Using a multisystem resilience framework, the narrative review of 99 eligible studies documents the biological, psychological, social, institutional, structural, environmental and cultural resources that enabled better-than-expected outcomes among risk-exposed children and youth.

Results

Psychological and social resources were more prominently reported than biological, institutional, structural, environmental or cultural resources. Two-thirds of the included studies reported resources from two or more systems, with psychological and social systems dominating multisystem studies. Despite the inclusion of multiple systems, studies seldom reported co-acting resources.

Discussion

Although the attention to resources across multiple systems is encouraging, child and youth resilience agendas will be better served by studies that document co-acting resources. This will allow policymakers and service providers to gauge the additive effects of multiple resources and which combinations of resources are most likely to advance young people’s resilience.

Citation: Theron LC, van Breda AD (2025) The multisystemic roots of South African child and youth resilience: A scoping review. PLoS One 20(11): e0336716. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336716

Editor: AKM Alamgir, Access Alliance Multicultural Health and Community Services: Access Alliance, CANADA

Received: November 28, 2024; Accepted: October 26, 2025; Published: November 14, 2025

Copyright: © 2025 Theron, van Breda. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files. As this is a systematic review of other research, the paper includes the database, search strategies and findings which support replication of the study.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The study of child and youth resilience first piqued researcher interest in the 1970s. Aided by relentless global risk, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate emergency, child and youth resilience continues to dominate research agendas [1]. While definitions vary [2], resilience is commonly understood as the ability to adjust positively to significant risk exposure [3,4]. Over time, however, what this ability is attributed to has changed, with more recent studies identifying multiple resources from multiple systems as integral to child and youth resilience [5]. This move toward using a multisystemic approach to researching and theorizing resilience is an important development, as multisystemic accounts of resilience preclude children and youth being held responsible for their (in)ability to adjust to significant stress, in contrast to earlier person-focused, neoliberal accounts of resilience [2].

South Africa makes an interesting case study for child and youth vulnerability and resilience. Its large percentage of children and youth in the population [6], high levels of child poverty and multidimensional child poverty (which extends poverty beyond mere financial status) [7], exceptionally high youth unemployment [8] and financial inequality [9], and the disturbing levels of gender-based violence [10] in combination provide the case of a country faced with major social, political and economic challenges. In this regard, South Africa is similar to most majority world countries. The majority world, encompassing most of Latin America, Africa, and Asia, is home to 90% of the world’s children and youth and characterized by relentless risks [11]. On the other hand, by contrast with many African and other majority world countries, South Africa is stable and developed. In this context, vulnerability and resilience may both be highlighted, providing useful points of comparison with both developing and developed countries.

How well have South African studies of child and youth resilience kept pace with the trend to explain resilience as a multisystemic process? This is a crucial question in the context of South Africa, where young people’s exposure to significant risk is high. Most South African children and youth have first-hand experience of poverty, hunger, violence, HIV-related challenges (e.g., being HIV+ or living with a caregiver who is HIV+), inequitable access to services, including quality education, and the climate emergency [12–14]. Girls are disproportionately vulnerable, with high numbers becoming teenage mothers [15] or being exposed to gender-based violence [16]. At least one in three South African youth is not in education, employment or training (NEET) [17]. Worryingly, systemic support aimed at enabling positive adjustment to the aforementioned risk exposures is typically tepid [13].

Given this reality, there is a very real risk that South African young people could be made solely responsible for their own resilience. To do so would be to magnify the risks they already face, not least because risk is often multisystemic [1]. Signposting that child and youth resilience is rooted in multiple co-acting resources found across multiple systems is one way to prompt policymakers, service providers, communities, and families to be co-accountable for young people’s resilience. The scoping review that we report in this article acts as that signpost.

Initially, resilience studies reified personal strengths [18]. Psychological strengths were particularly emphasized, including self-esteem, self-regulation skills, agency and mastery, perseverance or grit, and hopeful meaning-making [3]. While personal strengths have remained important to child and youth resilience, they could not fully account for young people’s ability to adjust well to significant risk and so subsequent theories foregrounded the role of resilience-supporting social ecologies (e.g., families, schools, communities) [19,20]. From a multisystemic perspective, a more complete account would need to go beyond the social ecology to acknowledge resources found in biological and environmental systems also [21].

Understood multisystemically, young people’s ability to adjust well to significant risk is rooted in co-acting resources from multiple systems, including biological, psychological, social, institutional, structural, environmental, and cultural systems [4,21–24]. Put differently, a multisystemic approach directs attention to multiple system resources found across the micro-macro continuum [1]. These include resources in young people’s bodies (e.g., neurological strengths), psyche (e.g., hopefulness), family (e.g., caring parents), immediate community (e.g., supportive neighbors or accessible services), immediate environment (e.g., accessible green spaces), as well as distal ones, such as enabling government policy (e.g., cash transfers to resource-constrained households or structural justice) and enabling cultural heritage (e.g., comforting spiritual or religious beliefs and practices).

Ultimately, a multisystemic account identifies a combination of resources working in tandem to support young people to adjust well to significant risk [5,25]. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Masten and Motti-Stefanidi [26] explained child and youth resilience to pandemic-related challenges as a multifaceted capacity that was co-informed by diverse resources, such as health, immune function, social support, community density, access to healthcare services, adapted school rules and functioning, and comforting spiritual beliefs.

There are glimmers of multisystemic thinking in earlier studies of South African child and youth resilience. A systematic synthesis by Van Breda and Theron [27] of 61 South African child and youth resilience studies conducted between 2009 and 2017 showed that personal and relational resources were well accounted for, along with nascent attention to institutional, structural, and cultural system resources. However, this review made no mention of environmental resources. Likewise, it did not explicate what combinations of resources were reported.

In response to these lacunae and the need to advance multisystemic understandings of child and youth resilience in the risk-saturated context of South Africa, this article updates the Van Breda and Theron [27] review. The updated review answers two broad questions: What resources, as documented in studies published between 2018 and 2023, support the resilience of South African children and youth? And, how aligned are the reported resources with multisystemic perspectives of resilience? The latter question directs attention to the types of systems (i.e., biological, psychological, social, institutional, structural, environmental, and cultural) implicated in the reported resources, as well as to resource interaction (i.e., reports of co-acting resources or resource combinations).

Method

To conduct the review, we followed the guidance in the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [28] (see S1 Checklist).

Eligibility criteria

Resilience studies have three hallmarks [29]. They investigate (i) a better-than-expected outcome (e.g., educational progress or success, mental health, civic engagement, or successful transitions) in the context of (ii) significant risk (e.g., exposure to or experience of maltreatment, conflict, structural disadvantage, or life-threatening illness) and account for (iii) the promotive and protective factors or processes (PPFPs) that are associated with that better-than-expected outcome. Understood this way, resilience is a process, rather than an outcome. Using these hallmarks [29], we considered publications eligible for inclusion if they reported the PPFPs associated with a better-than-expected outcome among children, adolescents, and emerging adults [18-to-29-year-olds; 30] with experience of significant stress exposure and living in South Africa.

Following Ungar [29], we excluded studies that reported resilience as the outcome. Further, because this scoping review updates Van Breda and Theron [27], we excluded any studies published before 2018. Like Van Breda and Theron [27], we excluded intervention studies when they reported the results of interventions aimed at achieving a better-than-expected outcome (but included them when they reported baseline data or non-intervention findings) and publications that reported no original research results (e.g., commentaries and systematic reviews).

Information sources and search

An independent research psychologist searched for relevant academic journal publications using multiple databases: Africa-Wide, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO (all via EBSCOhost platform), Medline (via Web of Science Clarivate Analytics), PubMed, Scopus (which includes contents of Embase), Web of Science Core Collection, and SciELO Citation Index. In the interests of quality, we delimited the search to articles published in peer-reviewed journals. The time parameter for the online or full publication of these articles was January 2018 to December 2023.

As in Van Breda and Theron [27], the search terms were: ‘resilien*’ and ‘South Africa’ and (1) ‘child*’, or (2) ‘youth’, or (3) ‘young’ or (4) ‘adolescen*’ or (5) ‘teen*’ or (6) ‘learner*’ or (7) ‘student*’. The search terms were applied to titles, abstracts, and keywords/subject terms.

In total, the search yielded 1309 records. Fig 1 shows the PRISMA Flowchart depicting the search and selection process. Using Endnote software, the research psychologist identified and removed duplicates (n = 745) and ineligible records (n = 271) and transferred the remaining records (n = 293) to Rayyan. We (the authors) then independently screened these records to determine eligibility for full-text reading (i.e., we applied the eligibility criteria to each record). Following Saldaña [31], we met to reach consensus on the limited discrepancies in judgement (n = 33, 11% of the records). Ultimately, we selected 125 records for full-text reading and were able to retrieve the full texts of all 125 reports.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. PRISMA flow chart.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336716.g001

Selection of sources of evidence

We each independently read 50% of the full texts to confirm their fit with the specified eligibility criteria, before moderating each other’s decisions. Following a second consensus discussion to resolve the discrepancies in our assessments (n = 18; 14% of the full texts), we excluded 26 full texts (Fig 1), yielding 99 studies for the review.

Data charting process

We used the same data charting form that informed the resilience review conducted by Theron, Cockcroft [32], which was an expanded version of Van Breda and Theron [27]. It included the study’s aim, design, sample (size and specifics), risk exposure, better-than-expected outcomes and how they were measured/investigated, and PPFPs that were associated with better-than-expected outcomes. We each extracted data from 50% of the included full texts, before reviewing the other’s extracted data.

Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

Informed by guidance of qualitative content analysis in scoping reviews [33], we conducted a narrative synthesis of the data. We tabulated essential aspects of the included studies, including their design, the risk/s that participants were exposed to, and better-than-expected outcome/s reported. We focused on the PPFPs associated with these outcomes. In line with a multisystemic approach to resilience [21–23,34], we considered the systems represented by the PPFPs, how (if at all) they represented multiple systems, and how (if at all) the PPFPs interacted. Our identification of systems was guided by the definitions summarized in Table 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Systemic definitions informing how results were reported.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336716.t001

Results

We report two sets of results. Building on the data extraction table in S1 Table, which summarizes the key details of the 99 full texts included for review, we first provide an overview of the included studies (i.e., we comment on patterns relating to methodology, participants, the risks framing the studies, and better-than-expected outcomes). Thereafter, we report the PPFPs associated with the resilience of South African children and youth and comment critically on their alignment with multisystemic perspectives of resilience.

Overview of the included studies

Overview of designs.

A quantitative design informed half (n = 48) of the included studies. Qualitative designs were almost as popular (n = 43), with just over a third reporting visual methodologies (n = 16) [35–50]. Mixed methods designs were rare (n = 8) [44,46,51–56]. Across all these designs, longitudinal studies were infrequent (n = 12) [44,47,56–65]. Of these 12 studies, seven had just two waves of data, while two had three waves [44,57], and one each had five [63], six [59] or eight waves [58] of data. Eight of the longitudinal studies were quantitative, two were qualitative [47,63] and two mixed methods [44,56].

Overview of participants.

The included studies represented a total of 57,411 participants. This total excludes repeated samples (i.e., those that were identically reported in multiple papers, albeit for the purpose of different analyses): [52] and [53]; [66] and [67]; [68,69], and [70]; and [63] and [71]. The total also excludes one study that did not report an exact sample size [72].

Most participants were adolescents (10- to 17-year-olds) or emerging adults (18- to 29-year-olds), with 56 studies including either adolescents or emerging adults and 28 studies including a mix of the two (e.g., 14- to 24-year-olds). Only 14 studies included infants and children (up to age 9). Most samples included young people engaged in education (primary, secondary, or tertiary level).

Seventeen studies focused on the resilience of girls or young women. Typically, they foregrounded gendered risks, including intimate partner violence [73,74], living with communicable disease [75], teenage motherhood [54,76–79], and sexual and reproductive health [66,67]. In contrast, only two studies focused on the resilience of young men. One explored resilience to school failure [80], and the other the resilience of teenage fathers [81]. Despite the relatively high number of girl-focused studies, only one [82] provided a gendered account of young women’s resilience. Overall, most studies (n = 78) were not gender specific. Of these, 64 studies reported male-female participant ratios, with girls and young women representing 55% of the sample on average.

Overview of risk contexts.

Almost half the studies (n = 44) investigated child or youth resilience in the context of structural violence (e.g., exposure to poverty, poor service delivery, overcrowding, physical and sexual violence, and marginalization) and/or family adversity. There was also repeated attention to risks that intersect with structural violence, including young people living with or affected by HIV (n = 11) [37,40,57,66,75,83–88]; transitioning to or progressing through university (particularly among first-generation students) (n = 9) [55,89–96]; living in or transitioning out of care (n = 7) [38,41,58,82,97–99]; and teenage parenthood (n = 6) [54,76–79,81].

Unsurprisingly, given the review period (2018–2023), many studies investigated the resilience of young people to challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, such as lockdown and school closures (n = 17) [39,41,49,52,53,63–65,68–71,91,100–103].

The inattention to climate emergency and NEEThood risks was conspicuous. Apart from Theron, Mampane’s [45] drought-focused study, no studies reported South African youth resilience to the climate emergency. Similarly, while there was passing mention of disengagement from education in the studies that explored the resilience of young mothers who returned to school [54,76–79], no study investigated the resilience of young people who were NEET.

Overview of better-than-expected outcomes.

A third of studies (n = 33) conceptualized mental health (e.g., no or minimal symptoms of depression) or well-being (e.g., satisfaction with life) as the better-than-expected outcome of choice (or one of the outcomes of choice), and typically used validated scales (e.g., the Beck Depression Inventory-II or Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) to measure this outcome. Another third (n = 29) used academic markers to denote the better-than-expected outcome. This included academic persistence (e.g., returning to school after becoming a teenage parent or not quitting the first year of university), academic success or progress (e.g., passing a semester or being in the age-appropriate grade), or engagement in schooling. These outcomes were measured (e.g., using academic grades or records, or validated scales, such as the School Engagement Scale [104]), or self- or other-reported (e.g., by teaching staff). A fifth of the studies used a behavioral or health outcome (n = 18; e.g., engagement in leisure activity or non-engagement in risky sexual behaviors), positive coping, often broadly described as ‘doing well’ and typically self-reported (n = 14); and/or a developmental outcome (n = 9; e.g., independent living among young adults or normative cognitive development among pre-school children).

PPFPs by system

Frequency of systems.

As in Van Breda and Theron [27], resources in the psychological system are the most frequently reported in the 2018–2023 papers included in this review (n = 75), followed by the social system (n = 68). These two systems are by far the most frequently reported resilience-enabling systems. After these, 27 studies reported PPFPs in the institutional system, followed by 20 in the cultural, 13 in the structural, nine in the environmental and eight in the biological systems. The comparative under-reporting of institutional, cultural, structural, environmental, and biological resources mimics the resource pattern reported by Van Breda and Theron [27]. Then and now, it is the most micro system (biological) and the most macro systems (structural, environmental, and cultural) that are the least frequently reported, while the three in-between systems (psychological, social, and institutional) are most frequently reported.

Multiple systems of resilience resources.

Two-system combinations trump monosystem and multisystem accounts. As shown in Table 2, one-third (n = 31) of the 99 studies identified resilience resources in only one system. Of these, half (n = 15) were in the psychological system, a third (n = 10) in the social system, three institutional, two cultural, and one structural. This appears to confirm a trend towards mono-systemic and psychosocial constructions of resilience, rather than multisystemic constructions.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Summary of monosystems and multisystems of PPFPs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336716.t002

However, this does mean that around two-thirds of the studies (n = 68) incorporated multiple systems. Almost half of these (n = 31) identified resilience resources in two systems. About two-thirds of these (n = 19 of 31) were a combination of the psychological and social systems. Other two-system combinations included three studies combining psychological and cultural systems, and three combining social and structural systems. The remaining six studies with two-system combinations each had a different pairing of systems (i.e., Biological + Personal; Biological + Structural; Psychological + Institutional; Psychological + Structural; Social + Institutional; and Institutional + Structural).

One quarter (n = 23) of the 99 studies had three-system combinations, most of which (n = 21) are based on the familiar psychosocial combination, plus a third system. Ten of these included the institutional system, five the cultural system, three structural, two environmental, and one biological. The remaining two studies combined Biological + Social + Institutional and Social + Structural + Environmental.

Twelve studies had four-system combinations, 11 of which were based on the psychosocial combination plus two other systems. Five of these were combined with institutional and cultural systems, and two with structural and cultural systems. The remaining five studies each had a unique combination of systems, three of which were based on the psychosocial pair. These four-system studies, while still based on the psychosocial pair, show a diverse engagement with a wide range of other systems – each of the systems was referenced in at least three of the 12 studies.

Finally, two studies had a five-system combination, both with the same systems: the ubiquitous psychosocial pair, plus institutional, environmental, and cultural systems. Neither study drew on the biological or structural systems.

Overall, 44 of the 99 studies focused on psychological or social systems or both, confirming a focus on the traditional psychosocial domains of resilience, regardless of the number of systems included (i.e., mono, two, or multiple).

Co-acting systems

Multisystemic resilience involves not only the presence of multiple PPFPs, but also the co-acting of these systems with each other. In other words, the contribution of multiple PPFPs to better-than-expected outcomes is enhanced when these systems interact or synergize with one another. Establishing co-action between PPFPs is a recent innovation and the methodologies for detecting such co-actions are still evolving [5]. Most studies did not report on co-action between systems, but rather on the contributions of separate systems. The subsequent sections provide examples of studies that did report co-action.

Qualitative findings.

In some qualitative studies, accounts of the interactions between systems are reported explicitly or implied. For example, Bezuidenhout, Theron [36] described the interactions between psychological and social systems in a grade 1 child. The child is described by her mother as “a driven child”. The child shares with the interviewer her excitement at getting high scores for excellent performance. The teacher acknowledges this and affirms the child with positive feedback. Furthermore, the child also relates building networks of friends, who help moderate her performance anxiety, based on a larger anxiety concerning her parents’ divorce. The teacher also assisted in containing the child by giving her a hug. The child’s sense of self, combined with self-initiated and other-initiated support from peers and a kind teacher, fostered co-action between the psychological and social systems.

In another qualitative study, Bond and Van Breda [38] suggested interactions between children’s possible selves and turning point people or role models in their social environment. One participant reported being recruited into a gang, involving drug use. In his community, gang membership can be difficult to withstand, but joining a gang also meets powerful social needs for belonging, identity, and protection [what Pessoa et al. [135] refer to as ‘hidden resilience’]. Around this time, a pilot visited the residential care facility where the child was living and asked him what he wanted to be and encouraged him to consider becoming a pilot. The child was impressed and inspired, and cultivated a hoped-for possible self as an air technician, which helped to decenter the pressure from the gang. The possible self was a psychological construct, enabled by a natural mentor, that loosened the power of the gang. Here, two social systems influenced and were in turn influenced by the psychological system, co-acting with each other.

A single qualitative study explicated co-acting PPFPs. Theron, Murphy [133] identified several systemic interactions in their thematic account of the resilience of 21 youth from a stressed community in South Africa. The reported interactions included PPFPs from two, three and four systems co-acting to support youth resilience (i.e., psychological + informal social resources; biological + psychological + informal social resources; and biological + psychological + social + built environment resources).

Quantitative findings.

In a few quantitative studies, statistical methods were used to explore the interactions between systems. In a study of predictors of school engagement [56], age (in the biological system), parental or caregiver warmth (social system), school resources (institutional system) and perceived teacher competence (institutional system) co-acted in complex ways. For children under 16 years, school engagement was predicted by a well-resourced school, and significantly enhanced by high levels of parental warmth; while for children over 16 years, high parental warmth was highly predictive of school engagement, and further strengthened by perceiving their teacher to be competent. This analysis shows the unique ways that three systems (biological, social and institutional) co-act to influence school engagement.

Another study [44] considered the contribution of multiple systems of resilience to depression among 15–23-year-old youth in high-risk communities. The researchers found that psychological systems (e.g., hopefulness and future orientation), social systems (e.g., family, peer, and school), environmental (e.g., sports facilities) and cultural (e.g., faith-based beliefs and practices) were present among all participants in the study, regardless of the depression trajectory reported over an 18-month period (i.e., chronic high depression, worsening depression, declining depression, or stable low depression). However, those with a declining or stable low depression trajectory over time reported more varied and deeper combinations of these systems than those with higher or worsening depression trajectories.

Other differences included how these systems were utilized. For example, most participants turned to cultural, specifically faith-based practices. Those with declining depression included faith-based practices and did so frequently over time, while those with worsening depression were more likely to include faith-based practices, but did so less frequently over time. In addition, those with lower or lessening depression reported greater use of environmental systems like libraries and parks, and to draw on psychological resources like future orientation. The researchers concluded that multiple interacting systems, particularly environmental and cultural systems, facilitate decreasing or lower depression in contexts of high adversity.

Discussion

Drawing on a narrative synthesis of 99 eligible articles published between 2018 and 2023, this scoping review updates the Van Breda and Theron [27] review of child and youth resilience studies conducted in South Africa. The update focuses on identifying the PPFPs associated with the resilience of South African young people, with emphasis on how these align with more recent multisystemic approaches to resilience. Multisystemic approaches theorize that co-acting PPFPs, found across biological, psychological, social, institutional, structural, environmental, and cultural systems, scaffold better-than-expected child and youth outcomes [4,21–23]. A better understanding of the multisystemic roots of resilience is pivotal to optimizing resilience-enabling supports to young people challenged by significant risk, as well as to designing future resilience studies that halt the reification of simplistic (i.e., mono-systemic) accounts of child and youth resilience.

As in the Van Breda and Theron [27] review, psychological and social PPFPs dominated accounts of the resources supporting child and youth resilience in the 2018–2023 period. While this joint focus is an encouraging move away from the traditional and inadequate preoccupation with only psychological strengths when explaining child and youth resilience [23], it still eclipses the potential contribution of biological, institutional, structural, environmental, and cultural systems. Studies of how best to accelerate positive SDG-aligned child and youth outcomes clearly show the value of not limiting supports to psychological and social ones [136]. For example, lower exposure to abuse for adolescents living with HIV in the Eastern Cape in South Africa was associated not only with social supports (i.e., better parenting), but institutional (i.e., household cash transfers) and environmental (i.e., safe school spaces) supports too [137]. Similarly, school-attending adolescents in Nigeria reported lower substance use when they were mentally healthy, attended schools that were safe, and experienced food security (i.e., a combination of psychological, environmental, and institutional PPFPs) [138].

Two-thirds of the studies (n = 68) reported in this review included multiple systems. While this suggests allegiance with the recent trend toward multisystemic accounts of resilience, enthusiasm for this finding is tempered by the fact that about half (n = 31) focused on only two systems, with most two-system studies focusing on psychological and social systems. This narrow focus could be an artefact of how challenging it is to design resilience studies that involve three or more systems. For example, researchers need to determine which systems to include and how contextually and culturally relevant they are to a given population; recruit a large enough sample to facilitate an adequately powered analysis of multiple variables; and identify analysis strategies that can combine diverse systemic data [5]. Further, working across systems implies navigating the complexities of collaboration with researchers from multiple disciplines (i.e., researchers who do not necessarily share common theoretical frameworks, scientific jargon or research methodologies).

Still, despite the popularity of psychosocial systems, the remaining multisystemic studies (n = 37) broadened the focus on psychological and social PPFPs to include PPFPs from biological, institutional, structural, environmental and cultural systems. Among these, biological and environmental systems were least represented. In addition to the above-mentioned challenges, the under-representation of these systems could be an artefact of gaining youth (and caregiver) buy-in to provide biological samples [e.g., 139], the relative absence of safe green spaces in Southern Africa’s resource-constrained communities [140], and the expense of objectively measuring biological and environmental PPFPs. Investigating psychosocial and related PPFPs (e.g., cultural or institutional PPFPs) is less costly, not least because it can be done via self-report.

Although the attention to multiple systems is a positive development in the studies of South African child and youth resilience, more attention is needed to how the PPFPs in diverse systems co-support better-than-expected outcomes. Identifying resources across systems that support child and youth resilience falls short of accounting for their co-occurring protective effects. Investigating co-acting PPFPs is key to discerning which combinations of resources matter most for which better-than-expected outcomes for which children and youth in what contexts of risk [1,5,29], and for determining additive protective effects [136]. To identify co-acting resources, future quantitative studies need to adopt sophisticated multilevel modelling approaches, such as network analyses [4,141]. Similarly, research questions that enquire about interacting PPFPs during data generation or analytic questions that purposefully identify co-acting PPFPs during data analysis can provide useful insight into resource combinations and their protective value.

These findings, specific to South Africa, share similarities with the state of resilience research in other countries, not only in the majority world, but also the minority world. For example, resilience scholars in Canada note the emphasis on individual coping strategies and the use of only one or two systems incorporated in resilience studies [139]. As recently as 2024, Masten, based in the US, describes multisystemic resilience as still emerging and possible [1], suggesting that these South African findings have global relevance.

Limitations

We report that almost a third of the included studies were mono-systemic studies. However, there were instances where studies investigated resources in multiple systems, but only a single resource was found to be significantly protective [e.g., 108]. Had we reported non-significant results, the number of multisystemic studies would have been higher.

As documented in the overview of the included studies, children younger than nine were poorly represented. Similarly, although there are growing numbers of South African youth with experience of NEEThood and concerns that the climate emergency will swell these numbers [17], there was almost no attention to the resilience of young people exposed to either NEEThood or extreme weather events. The limited representation of these children and youth cautions against assumptions that the review results are applicable to them.

Also, only a minority of studies were gender specific and of these, only one [82] provided a gendered account of resilience. Following [142], the inattention to gendered processes of resilience is a limitation that should be rectified by future resilience studies.

Conclusion

Taken together, the results of this scoping review show that 2018–2023 studies of South African child and youth resilience have not been agnostic to a multisystemic approach to resilience. A multisystemic approach is essential to gaining a holistic understanding of the resources that should be put in place to support better-than-expected outcomes among vulnerable children and youth. In contexts like South Africa, where structural violence is putatively intractable, a multisystemic approach urges government and other stakeholders to replace the neoliberal rhetoric of resilience with policies and action that make systemic resources available to those who are vulnerable [2]. Facilitating biological, institutional, structural, environmental, and cultural resources should relieve vulnerable young people and their support networks from shouldering the responsibility for child and youth resilience.

Going forward, however, researchers will need to account for how biological, psychological, social, institutional, structural, environmental, and cultural resources combine to co-facilitate better-than-expected outcomes among South Africa’s many vulnerable children and youth. Ideally, they need to do so over time, given the dynamic nature of resilience [1,5]. These future studies also need to redress the under-representation of some of South Africa’s most vulnerable children and youth in resilience studies to date (e.g., those with experience of extreme weather events, climate change impacts or NEEThood).

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336716.s001

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Profile of South African child and youth resilience studies, 2018–2023.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336716.s002

(DOCX)

References

  1. 1. Masten AS. Emergence and evolution of developmental resilience science over half a century. Dev Psychopathol. 2024;36(5):2542–50. pmid:38456302
  2. 2. Clark JN. Resilience as a ‘concept at work’ in the war in Ukraine: exploring its international and domestic significance. Rev Int Stud. 2024;50(4):720–40.
  3. 3. Masten AS. Ordinary magic: resilience in development. New York: Guilford Publications; 2014.
    • 4. Masten AS, Tyrell FA, Cicchetti D. Resilience in development: pathways to multisystem integration. Dev Psychopathol. 2023;35(5):2103–12. pmid:38316623
    • 5. Ungar M, Theron L, Höltge J. Multisystemic approaches to researching young people’s resilience: discovering culturally and contextually sensitive accounts of thriving under adversity. Dev Psychopathol. 2023;35(5):2199–213. pmid:37128831
    • 6. StatsSA. Mid-year population estimates. P0302. Pretoria, South Africa: Statistics South Africa; 2024.
      • 7. StatsSA. Child poverty in South Africa: a multiple overlapping deprivation analysis. Pretoria: StatsSA; 2020.
        • 8. StatsSA. Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS), Q4:2023. Pretoria, South Africa: Statistics South Africa; 2023.
          • 9. World Data Bank. World development indicators: Gini Index (World Bank estimate) 2016; 2023 Available from: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/jobs/Series/SI.POV.GINI
          • 10. Zungu N, Petersen Z, Parker W, Dukhi N, Sewpaul R, Abdelatif N. The first South African national gender-based violence study, 2022: a baseline survey on victimisation and perpetration. Human Sciences Research Council; 2024.
            • 11. Raval VV, Baiden P, Espinosa-Hernandez G, Magis-Weinberg L, Nguyen AJ, Titzmann PF, et al. Perspectives of researchers engaging in majority world research to promote diverse and global psychological science. Am Psychol. 2024;79(3):352–67. pmid:37971842
            • 12. Spaull N, Jansen JD, editors. South African schooling: the enigma of inequality: a study of the present situation and future possibilities. Springer; 2019.
              • 13. Tomlinson M, Kleintjes S, Lake L, editors. South African child gauge 2021/2022. Cape Town, South Africa: Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town; 2022.
                • 14. Zuma K, Simbayi L, Zungu N, Moyo S, Marinda E, Jooste S, et al. The HIV epidemic in South Africa: key findings from 2017 national population-based survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(13):8125. pmid:35805784
                • 15. Barron P, Subedar H, Letsoko M, Makua M, Pillay Y. Teenage births and pregnancies in South Africa, 2017 - 2021 – a reflection of a troubled country: analysis of public sector data. SAMJ. 2022;112(4):252–8.
                • 16. Mayeza E, Bhana D, Mulqueeny D. Normalising violence? Girls and sexuality in a South African high school. J Gend Stud. 2021;31(2):165–77.
                • 17. Mudiriza G, De Lannoy A, David A. Youth and the just transition: a profile of young NEET in Mpumalanga. Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town; 2024. Report No.: SALDRU Working Paper Number 304.
                  • 18. Anthony EJ. Risk, vulnerability, and resilience: an overview. In: Anthony EJ, Cohler BJ, editors. The invulnerable child. New York: Guilford; 1987. p. 3–48.
                    • 19. Masten AS, Cicchetti D. Resilience in development: progress and transformation. In: Cicchetti D, editor. Developmental psychopathology, Vol 4, Risk, resilience, and intervention. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. p. 271–333.
                      • 20. Ungar M. The social ecology of resilience: addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2011;81(1):1–17. pmid:21219271
                      • 21. Ungar M, editor. Multisystemic resilience: adaptation and transformation in contexts of change. Oxford University Press; 2021.
                        • 22. Masten AS, Lucke CM, Nelson KM, Stallworthy IC. Resilience in development and psychopathology: multisystem perspectives. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2021;17:521–49. pmid:33534615
                        • 23. Ungar M, Theron L. Resilience and mental health: how multisystemic processes contribute to positive outcomes. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(5):441–8. pmid:31806473
                        • 24. Ungar M. Systemic resilience: principles and processes for a science of change in contexts of adversity. E&S. 2018;23(4):34.
                        • 25. Theron L, Levine D, Haffejee S. NEET and resilient: The lived experiences of a sample of South African emerging adults. Int J Psychol. 2024;59(6):911–9. pmid:38956925
                        • 26. Masten AS, Motti-Stefanidi F. Multisystem resilience for children and youth in disaster: reflections in the context of COVID-19. Advers Resil Sci. 2020;1(2):95–106. pmid:32838305
                        • 27. van Breda AD, Theron LC. A critical review of South African child and youth resilience studies, 2009–2017. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2018;91:237–47.
                        • 28. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033
                        • 29. Ungar M. Designing resilience research: using multiple methods to investigate risk exposure, promotive and protective processes, and contextually relevant outcomes for children and youth. Child Abuse Negl. 2019;96:104098. pmid:31376582
                        • 30. Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood: the winding road from the late teens through the twenties. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2024.
                          • 31. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage; 2009.
                            • 32. Theron LC, Cockcroft K, Annalakshmi N, Rodgers JG, Akinduyo TE, Fouché A. Emerging adult resilience to the early stages of the COVID-pandemic: a systematic scoping review. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2025;56(3):793–808. pmid:37698747
                            • 33. Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):520–32. pmid:36081365
                            • 34. Masten AS, Narayan AJ, Wright MO. Resilience processes in development: multisystem integration emerging from four waves of research. In: Goldstein S, Brooks RB, editors. Handbook of resilience in children. 3rd ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2023. p. 19–46.
                            • 35. Berejena Mhongera P, Lombard A. Pathways of resilience for children facing socio-economic adversities: experiences from future families’ OVC programmes in South Africa. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;108:104657.
                            • 36. Bezuidenhout C, Theron L, Fritz E. Positive adjustment to first grade despite divorce: lessons for school psychologists. Sch Psychol Int. 2018;39(5):490–509.
                            • 37. Bireda AD, Pillay J. Enhancing protective factors in South African adolescents affected by HIV/AIDS. Vulner Child Youth Stud. 2017;13(2):183–94.
                            • 38. Bond S, van Breda A. Interaction between possible selves and the resilience of care-leavers in South Africa. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2018;94:88–95.
                            • 39. De Jager S. Connection, desperation and disillusionment: exploring student wellbeing at a university in South Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. PIE. 2023;41(1):38–55.
                            • 40. Machenjedze N, Malindi MJ, Mbengo F. The feasibility of the draw-and-write technique in exploring the resilience of children orphaned by AIDS. Afr J AIDS Res. 2019;18(1):72–80. pmid:30880580
                            • 41. Malindi MJ, Hay J. Resilience anchors for children in an out-of-home care institution during and after COVID-19. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1189739. pmid:37849481
                            • 42. Pretorius T, Theron L. ‘A pillar of strength’: empowering women and the resilience of township-dwelling adolescents. YOUNG. 2018;27(4):373–94.
                            • 43. Theron L. Adolescent versus adult explanations of resilience enablers. Youth Soc. 2017;52(1):78–98.
                            • 44. Theron L, Höltge J, Ungar M. Multisystemic supports and adolescent resilience to depression over time: a South African mixed methods study. Dev Psychopathol. 2023;35(5):2365–83. pmid:37144408
                            • 45. Theron L, Ruth Mampane M, Ebersöhn L, Hart A. Youth resilience to drought: learning from a group of South African adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):7896. pmid:33126515
                            • 46. Theron L, Ungar M, Cockcroft K, Fouche A. Multisystemic resources matter for resilience to depression: learning from a sample of young South African adults. Qual Health Res. 2023;33(10):828–41. pmid:37414738
                            • 47. Theron L, van Rensburg A. Resilience over time: learning from school-attending adolescents living in conditions of structural inequality. J Adolesc. 2018;67:167–78. pmid:29980070
                            • 48. Theron L, van Rensburg A. Parent-figures and adolescent resilience: an African perspective. Int J Sch Educ Psychol. 2019;8(2):90–103.
                            • 49. Wakefield S, Theron L. Exploring adolescent resilience during COVID-19 in a South African township context. NYARJ. 2023;6(2):1–23.
                            • 50. Theron LC, Levine D, Ungar M. African emerging adult resilience: insights from a sample of township youth. Emerg Adulthood. 2020;9(4):360–71.
                            • 51. Botha A, van der Merwe LJ. “I am still here!” Undergraduate medical students’ perceptions of resilience. J Psychol Afr. 2019;29(6):589–97.
                            • 52. Duby Z, Bunce B, Fowler C, Bergh K, Jonas K, Dietrich JJ, et al. Intersections between COVID-19 and socio-economic mental health stressors in the lives of South African adolescent girls and young women. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2022;16(1):23. pmid:35346316
                            • 53. Duby Z, Jonas K, Bunce B, Bergh K, Maruping K, Fowler C, et al. Navigating education in the context of COVID-19 lockdowns and school closures: challenges and resilience among adolescent girls and young women in South Africa. Front Educ. 2022;7:856610.
                            • 54. Groves AK, Gebrekristos LT, McNaughton Reyes L, Moodley D, Raziano V, Maman S. A mixed-methods study of resilience and return to school among adolescent mothers in South Africa. Glob Public Health. 2022;17(9):2111–24. pmid:34432605
                            • 55. Motsabi S, Diale B, van Zyl A. The academic persistence of First‑Year First‑Generation African Students (FYFGAS): a framework for higher education in South Africa. JSAA. 2020;8(2):73–85.
                            • 56. Theron L, Ungar M, Höltge J. Pathways of resilience: predicting school engagement trajectories for South African adolescents living in a stressed environment. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2022;69:102062.
                            • 57. Shenderovich Y, Boyes M, Esposti MD, Casale M, Toska E, Roberts KJ, et al. Relationships with caregivers and mental health outcomes among adolescents living with HIV: a prospective cohort study in South Africa. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):172. pmid:33472607
                            • 58. van Breda AD. The contribution of supportive relationships to care-leaving outcomes: a longitudinal resilience study in South Africa. Child Care Pract. 2022;30(3):400–15.
                            • 59. Christodoulou J, Rotheram-Borus MJ, Rezvan PH, Comulada WS, Stewart J, Almirol E, et al. Where you live matters: township neighborhood factors important to resilience among South African children from birth to 5 years of age. Prev Med. 2022;157:106966.
                            • 60. Macedo A, Sherr L, Tomlinson M, Skeen S, Roberts K. Parental bereavement in young children living in South Africa and Malawi: understanding mental health resilience. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018;78(4):390–8. pmid:29649074
                            • 61. Sherr L, Yakubovich AR, Skeen S, Tomlinson M, Cluver LD, Roberts KJ, et al. Depressive symptoms among children attending community based support in South Africa - pathways for disrupting risk factors. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020;25(4):984–1001. pmid:32571077
                            • 62. Somefun O, Theron L, Ungar M. The association between family adversity and youth mental health outcomes. J Adolesc. 2023;95(7):1333–47. pmid:37335052
                            • 63. Theron L, Levine D, Ungar M. Resilience to COVID-19-related stressors: insights from emerging adults in a South African township. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0260613. pmid:34932552
                            • 64. Haag K, Du Toit S, Skeen S, Steventon Roberts K, Chideya Y, Notholi V, et al. Predictors of COVID-related changes in mental health in a South African sample of adolescents and young adults. Psychol Health Med. 2022;27(sup1):239–55. pmid:35950705
                            • 65. Theron L, Ungar M, Höltge J. Student resilience to COVID-19-related school disruptions: the value of historic school engagement. Sch Psychol Int. 2023;44(2):190–213. pmid:38603441
                            • 66. LoVette A, Sullivan A, Kuo C, Operario D, Harrison A, Mathews C. Examining associations between resilience and sexual health among south african girls and young women living with and without HIV. AIDS Educ Prev. 2023;35(1):1–13. pmid:36735229
                            • 67. LoVette A, Sullivan A, Operario D, Kuo C, Harrison A, Mathews C. Social resources, resilience, and sexual health among South African adolescent girls and young women: findings from the HERStory study. Cult Health Sex. 2023;25(7):929–43. pmid:35960862
                            • 68. Padmanabhanunni A, Pretorius T. The loneliness-life satisfaction relationship: the parallel and serial mediating role of hopelessness, depression and ego-resilience among young adults in South Africa during COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7):3613. pmid:33807204
                            • 69. Padmanabhanunni A, Pretorius TB. The unbearable loneliness of COVID-19: COVID-19-related correlates of loneliness in South Africa in young adults. Psychiatry Res. 2021;296:113658. pmid:33360428
                            • 70. Padmanabhanunni A, Pretorius TB. Promoting well-being in the face of a pandemic: the role of sense of coherence and ego-resilience in the relationship between psychological distress and life satisfaction. S Afr J Psychol. 2023;53(1):124–33. pmid:37038457
                            • 71. Theron LC, Levine DT, Ungar M. The inhibitors and enablers of emerging adult COVID-19 mitigation compliance in a township context. S Afr J Sci. 2022;118(5/6):81–8.
                            • 72. Mostert CM, Vall Castello J. Long run educational and spillover effects of unconditional cash transfers: evidence from South Africa. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;36:100817. pmid:31540872
                            • 73. Bain K, Durbach C. Adaptation, resilience, and secure attachment states of mind in young South African female students exposed to intimate partner violence in childhood. J Interpers Violence. 2021;36(5–6):2541–71. pmid:29519209
                            • 74. McNaughton Reyes HL, Maman S, Groves AK, Moodley D. Intimate partner violence and postpartum emotional distress among South African women: moderating effects of resilience and vulnerability factors. Glob Public Health. 2020;15(8):1157–67. pmid:32290779
                            • 75. Dietrich JJ, Jonas K, Cheyip M, McClinton Appollis T, Ariyo O, Beauclair R, et al. Examining the relationship between psychosocial factors with knowledge of HIV-positive status and antiretroviral therapy exposure among adolescent girls and young women living with HIV in South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2023;27(1):231–44. pmid:35841462
                            • 76. Malindi MJ. Personal and socio-ecological resilience resources among school-going teenage mothers: an exploratory study. J Psychol Afr. 2018;28(4):340–3.
                            • 77. Mukuna RK, Aloka PJO. Interpretative phenomenological analysis of teenage mothers resiliency in overcoming adversities in pregnancy and early motherhood in South Africa. PEC. 2021;79(1):104–17.
                            • 78. Naidoo J, Muthukrishna N, Nkabinde R. The journey into motherhood and schooling: narratives of teenage mothers in the South African context. Int J Incl Educ. 2019;25(10):1125–39.
                            • 79. Singh S, Naicker P. Development of resilience in teenage mothers within contextual realities of poor rural South Africa. J Poverty. 2019;23(7):559–75.
                            • 80. Hemson C. Agency, resilience and innovation in overcoming educational failure. PIE. 2018;36(2):61–74.
                            • 81. Mukuna RK. Exploring Basotho teenage fathers’ experiences of early fatherhood at South African rural high schools. J Psychol Afr. 2020;30(4):348–53.
                            • 82. Hlungwani J, van Breda AD. Female care leavers’ journey to young adulthood from residential care in South Africa: Gender‐specific psychosocial processes of resilience. Child Fam Soc Work. 2020;25(4):915–23.
                            • 83. Crowley T, van der Merwe AS, Esterhuizen T, Skinner D. Resilience of adolescents living with HIV in the Cape Metropole of the Western Cape. AIDS Care. 2022;34(9):1103–10. pmid:34378464
                            • 84. Filiatreau LM, Giovenco D, Twine R, Gómez-Olivé FX, Kahn K, Haberland N, et al. Examining the relationship between physical and sexual violence and psychosocial health in young people living with HIV in rural South Africa. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020;23(12):e25654. pmid:33340267
                            • 85. Kuo C, LoVette A, Pellowski J, Harrison A, Mathews C, Operario D, et al. Resilience and psychosocial outcomes among South African adolescents affected by HIV. AIDS. 2019;33 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S29–34. pmid:31397720
                            • 86. Rotheram-Borus MJ, Christodoulou J, Hayati Rezvan P, Comulada WS, Gordon S, Skeen S, et al. Maternal HIV does not affect resiliency among uninfected/HIV exposed South African children from birth to 5 years of age. AIDS. 2019;33 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S5–16. pmid:31397718
                            • 87. Sharp C, Penner F, Marais L, Skinner D. School connectedness as psychological resilience factor in children affected by HIV/AIDS. AIDS Care. 2018;30(sup4):34–41. pmid:30626199
                            • 88. Zanoni BC, Archary M, Subramony T, Sibaya T, Psaros C, Haberer JE. Disclosure, social support, and mental health are modifiable factors affecting engagement in care of perinatally-HIV infected adolescents: a qualitative dyadic analysis. AIDS Behav. 2021;25(1):237–48. pmid:32638220
                            • 89. Burger A, Naude L. In their own words - students’ perceptions and experiences of academic success in higher education. Educ Stud. 2019;46(5):624–39.
                            • 90. Motsabi S, Diale BM, van Zyl A. The role of social support in the persistence of first-year first-generation African students in a higher education institution in South Africa. SAJHE. 2020;34(4):189–210.
                            • 91. Themane MJ, Mabasa LT. Epistemic access and success of historically disadvantaged students during the COVID-19 pandemic: a South African experience. PIE. 2022;40(1):18–38.
                            • 92. van Breda AD. Resilience of vulnerable students transitioning into a South African university. High Educ. 2017;75(6):1109–24.
                            • 93. Van der Merwe LJ, Botha A, Joubert G. Burnout and associated factors in undergraduate medical students at a South African university. AJHPE. 2020;12(2):62.
                            • 94. van Wyk M, Mason HD, van Wyk BJ, Phillips TK, van der Walt PE. The relationship between resilience and student success among a sample of South African engineering students. Cogent Psychol. 2022;9(1):2057660.
                            • 95. Winberg SL, Winberg C, Engel-Hills P. Persistence, resilience and mathematics in engineering transfer capital. IEEE Trans Educ. 2018;61(4):281–8.
                            • 96. Reed M, Maodzwa – Taruvinga M, Ndofirepi ES, Moosa R. Insights gained from a comparison of South African and Canadian first-generation students: the impact of resilience and resourcefulness on higher education success. Compare. 2018;49(6):964–82.
                            • 97. Bodiroa A, Ross E. Challenges, agency and ecology in the transition of youth from state residential care to independent living in Johannesburg, South Africa. Child Youth Serv. 2022;44(3):328–54.
                            • 98. Hlungwani J, van Breda AD. Affording managed opportunities for independence to build looked-after young people’s resilience: perceptions and experiences of care workers. JCS. 2022;17(2):137–51.
                            • 99. van Breda AD, Hlungwani J. Journey towards independent living: resilience processes of women leaving residential care in South Africa. J Youth Stud. 2018;22(5):604–22.
                            • 100. Adigun OT, Ndwandwe N. Academic resilience among deaf learners during e-learning in the COVID-19 era. RESSAT. 2022;7(2):27–48.
                            • 101. Mohangi K. Risks and opportunities for children’s well-being in resource-constrained multigenerational households during COVID-19: implications for school psychology interventions. Sch Psychol Int. 2023;44(2):236–54. pmid:38603399
                            • 102. Pretorius T. Depression among health care students in the time of COVID-19: the mediating role of resilience in the hopelessness–depression relationship. S Afr J Psychol. 2021;51(2):269–78.
                            • 103. Wegner L, Stirrup S, Desai H, de Jongh J-C. “This pandemic has changed our daily living”: young adults’ leisure experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa. J Occup Sci. 2022;29(3):323–35.
                            • 104. Lam S-F, Jimerson S, Wong BPH, Kikas E, Shin H, Veiga FH, et al. Understanding and measuring student engagement in school: the results of an international study from 12 countries. Sch Psychol Q. 2014;29(2):213–32. pmid:24933218
                            • 105. Oppong Asante K, Meyer-Weitz A, Okafo DC. Psychological capital and orientation to happiness as protective factors for coping among first year university students in South Africa. Int J Health Promot Educ. 2022;60(5):298–307.
                            • 106. Crombie KE, Crombie KD, Salie M, Seedat S. Medical students’ experiences of mistreatment by clinicians and academics at a South African university. TLM. 2023.
                            • 107. Duma PT. Diversity includes disability: experiences of resilience in a university residence. JSAA. 2019;7(2):75–87.
                            • 108. Höltge J, Ungar M, Theron L. The differential interplay of home routines and comforting beliefs on adolescent mental health in situations of severe parental conflict. Adv Res Sci. 2021;2(1):5–17.
                            • 109. Humm A, Kaminer D, Hardy A. Social support, violence exposure and mental health among young South African adolescents. J Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2018;30(1):41–50. pmid:29911956
                            • 110. Parchment TM, Small LA. South African child report of caregiver attunement as a mechanism to decrease engagement in risky sexual situations and depression. Vulner Child Youth Stud. 2022;18(1):100–12.
                            • 111. Theron L, Rothmann S, Makhnach A, Ungar M. Adolescent mental health resilience and combinations of caregiver monitoring and warmth: a person-centred perspective. J Child Fam Stud. 2022;31(10):2860–70. pmid:36254162
                            • 112. van der Wal W, George AA. Social support-oriented coping and resilience for self-harm protection among adolescents. J Psychol Afr. 2018;28(3):237–41.
                            • 113. van Rensburg AC, Theron LC, Rothmann S. Adolescent perceptions of resiliencepromoting resources: the South African Pathways to Resilience Study. SAJP. 2017;48(1):73–85.
                            • 114. Yang SA, Wild LG. Associations between grandparent involvement and psychological difficulties in adolescents facing family adversity. J Child Fam Stud. 2022;31(5):1489–500.
                            • 115. du Toit M, van der Linde J, Swanepoel DW. Early childhood development risks and protective factors in vulnerable preschool children from low-income communities in South Africa. J Community Health. 2021;46(2):304–12. pmid:32683531
                            • 116. Francis JM, Myers B, Nkosi S, Petersen Williams P, Carney T, Lombard C, et al. The prevalence of religiosity and association between religiosity and alcohol use, other drug use, and risky sexual behaviours among grade 8-10 learners in Western Cape, South Africa. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0211322. pmid:30759112
                            • 117. Gerrand P, Nkuna M. Father absence in the lives of female african youth living in Mpumalanga, South Africa. SWC. 2021;48(2):183–99.
                            • 118. Daniels J, Struthers H, Maleke K, Catabay C, Lane T, McIntyre J, et al. Rural school experiences of South African gay and transgender youth. J LGBT Youth. 2019;16(4):355–79.
                            • 119. Gordon KJ, Martin CE, Kutywayo A, Cox LA, Nongena P, Mullick S. Mental health needs of adolescent and young adult PrEP users in South Africa: implications for sexual and reproductive health programming. J Adolesc Health. 2023;73(6S):S73–80. pmid:37953012
                            • 120. Khumalo VL, Van Staden S, Graham MA. Weathering the storm: learning strategies that promote mathematical resilience. Pythagoras. 2022;43(1)a655.
                            • 121. Theron L, Rothmann S, Höltge J, Ungar M. Differential adaptation to adversity: a latent profile analysis of youth engagement with resilience-enabling cultural resources and mental health outcomes in a stressed Canadian and South African community. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2022;53(3–4):403–25.
                            • 122. van Rensburg A, Theron L, Rothmann S. A social ecological modeled explanation of the resilience processes of a sample of Black Sesotho-speaking adolescents. Psychol Rep. 2019;122(4):1211–34. pmid:29929433
                            • 123. Nyati LH, Patel L, Haffejee S, Sello M, Mbowa S, Sani T, et al. Context matters-child growth within a constrained socio-economic environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19):11944. pmid:36231238
                            • 124. Donald KA, Wedderburn CJ, Barnett W, Nhapi RT, Rehman AM, Stadler JAM, et al. Risk and protective factors for child development: an observational South African birth cohort. PLoS Med. 2019;16(9):e1002920. pmid:31560687
                            • 125. Gibbs A, Jewkes R, Willan S, Washington L. Associations between poverty, mental health and substance use, gender power, and intimate partner violence amongst young (18-30) women and men in urban informal settlements in South Africa: a cross-sectional study and structural equation model. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0204956. pmid:30281677
                            • 126. Herrero Romero R, Cluver L, Hall J, Steinert J. Socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescents and educational delay in two provinces in South Africa: impacts of personal, family and school characteristics. EaC. 2018;22(1):1–33.
                            • 127. Adefehinti B, Arts K. Challenging the odds of vulnerability and resilience in lone migration: coping strategies of Zimbabwean unaccompanied minors in South Africa. Child Geogr. 2018;17(4):427–41.
                            • 128. Haffejee S, Wiebesiek L. Resilience and resistance: the narrative of a transgender youth in rural South Africa. Gend Issues. 2021;38(3):344–60.
                            • 129. Sui X, Massar K, Reddy PS, Ruiter RAC. Developmental assets in South African adolescents exposed to violence: a qualitative study on resilience. J Child Adolesc Trauma. 2021;15(1):1–13. pmid:35211239
                            • 130. Dekel B, van Niekerk A. Women’s recovery, negotiation of appearance, and social reintegration following a burn. Burns. 2018;44(4):841–9. pmid:29395394
                            • 131. Nadat Y, Jacobs S. Elements that contribute to resilience in young women from a high-risk community. SWMW. 2021;57(1):87–100.
                            • 132. van Breda AD. Contribution of psychosocial vulnerability and resilience to academic achievement of primary school children in South Africa. Child Fam Soc Work. 2022;27(4):679–87.
                            • 133. Theron L, Murphy K, Ungar M. Multisystemic resilience: learning from youth in stressed environments. Youth Soc. 2021;54(6):1000–22.
                            • 134. Wills G, Hofmeyr H. Academic resilience in challenging contexts: evidence from township and rural primary schools in South Africa. Int J Educ Res. 2019;98:192–205.
                            • 135. Pessoa ASG, Coimbra RM, Koller SH, Ungar M. Hidden resilience in the life of adolescents with involvement in drug trafficking. Psic: Teor e Pesq. 2018;34.
                            • 136. Sherr L, Haag K, Tomlinson M, Rudgard WE, Skeen S, Meinck F, et al. Understanding accelerators to improve SDG-related outcomes for adolescents-an investigation into the nature and quantum of additive effects of protective factors to guide policy making. PLoS One. 2023;18(1):e0278020. pmid:36607964
                            • 137. Cluver LD, Orkin FM, Campeau L, Toska E, Webb D, Carlqvist A, et al. Improving lives by accelerating progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals for adolescents living with HIV: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2019;3(4):245–54. pmid:30878118
                            • 138. Tamambang R, Kusi-Mensah K, Bella-Awusah T, Ogunmola O, Afolayan A, Toska E, et al. Two are better than one but three is best: fast-tracking the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) among in-school adolescents in Nigeria. Child Ind Res. 2024;17(5):2219–41.
                            • 139. Ungar M, Theron L, Murphy K, Jefferies P. Researching multisystemic resilience: a sample methodology. Front Psychol. 2021;11:607994. pmid:33510683
                            • 140. Theron L, van Breda A. Multisystemic enablers of sub-Saharan child and youth resilience to maltreatment. Child Abuse Negl. 2021;119(Pt 2):105083. pmid:33931239
                            • 141. Höltge J, Theron L, Cowden RG, Govender K, Maximo SI, Carranza JS, et al. A cross-country network analysis of adolescent resilience. J Adolesc Health. 2021;68(3):580–8. pmid:32919888
                            • 142. Sanders J, Munford R, Boden J. Culture and context: the differential impact of culture, risks and resources on resilience among vulnerable adolescents. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2017;79:517–26.