Hope, older adults, and chronic illness: a metasynthesis of qualitative research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To report a metasynthesis review of qualitative research studies exploring the hope experience of older persons with chronic illness. BACKGROUND: Hope is a psychosocial resource used by persons to deal with their chronic illness experience. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of multiple databases for studies of the hope experience (published 1980-2010) was completed. Inclusion criteria were included qualitative studies of the hope experience of persons (all genders; mean age 60 years and older), with chronic illnesses, and publications in any language and country. REVIEW METHODS: The metasynthesis followed four procedural steps: (a) comprehensive search, (b) quality appraisal, (c) classification of studies, and (d) synthesis of findings. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in the metasynthesis representing research from a variety of different countries and populations with differing medical diagnoses. The characteristics of hope included: (a) dynamic or situational nature, (b) multiple co-existing types, (c) objects that were desirable realistic possibilities, (d) future-focused, and (e) involvement of choice/will. Hope as 'transcending possibilities' represented the integration of two processes of transcendence and positive reappraisal. Reaching inwardly and outwardly and finding meaning and purpose were sub-processes of transcendence, whereas re-evaluating hope in light of illness and finding positive possibilities were sub-processes of positive reappraisal. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of hope may differ for older adults vs. younger adults in its interaction with suffering. Resources for hope are both internal and external. Finding meaning and positive reappraisal are important strategies to help older adults with chronic illness maintain their hope.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.083 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".