Author(s): MOLLOY, L., BEATTIE, S., CALLOW, N., HARDY, J., TUDOR-EDWARDS, R., ONG, C.W., Institution: BANGOR UNIVERSITY , Country: UNITED KINGDOM, Abstract-ID: 2045

Introduction
Resilience has historically been viewed as an outcome or trait, with individuals who achieve better-than-expected outcomes despite dealing with adversity being considered resilient. More contemporary research suggests resilience may be a process, with both proactive and reactive elements. However, there has been little investigation as to how this more contemporary concept of a resilient as a process can be incorporated into specific interventions to develop resilience. In an established community football programme, we set out to explore ways that resilience may be developed as part of engagement in the programme, and the feasibility of conducting a specific resilience intervention.
Methods
The Resilience Process Scale – RPS (a 13-item scale assessing 4 stages of resilience: anticipate, minimise, manage and mend), CD-RISC 10 (10 item version of the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale), wellbeing (SWEMWBS) and physical activity levels using questions from the IPAQ were administered to 16 individuals partaking in a school-holiday based community sport programme at pre and post intervals following 4 coach-led and co-developed resilience sessions. Post-intervention qualitative analysis was conducted with participants via focus groups and coaches via 1-1 interviews to understand what aspects of the intervention were successful and where it can be improved.
Results
Quantitative analysis revealed improvements in the Manage aspect of the RPS, SWEMWBS Score and levels of physical activity approaching significance. Further investigations through thematic analysis of the focus groups and interviews revealed several key themes: coach relationship, social interaction and football as the ‘hook’ were revealed to be positive influences on session enjoyment and engagement.
Discussion
The findings suggest that, while improvements in resilience were statistically non-significant, participants felt they had learned some useful skills and had engaged well with the programme. This was echoed by coaches who enjoyed the opportunity to intertwine resilience theory with their coaching and had freedom to structure the sessions as they wished. This has several implications for practitioners and coaches looking to develop resilience interventions. Firstly, using a ‘hook’ or basing the intervention around an activity that participants would actively engage in will improve interest. Second, ensuring coaches are familiar and have a good relationship with participants will further increase engagement. Finally, giving coaches more freedom on how to implement the intervention content into the sessions will improve eagerness and motivation to engage in the process.