The Tenacity and Tenuousness of Hope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The meaning and role of hope in parents of children with life-threatening illnesses remain relatively unstudied. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to explore parental hope when a child is being treated for a malignancy resistant to treatment and to identify facilitators and barriers to maintaining hope in this context. METHODS: Thirty-five parents of children with difficult-to-treat cancer were interviewed 3 months after diagnosis. Line-by-line coding of transcripts was used to establish categories and themes. Constant comparison was used to examine relationships within and across codes and categories. RESULTS: Parental hope was related to the child's cure and future. The concept, however, oscillated between being tenacious and robust, and tenuous and elusive, depending on how the child was responding to treatment and the psychosocial context. Focusing on positive outcomes and experiences, spirituality, and social support facilitated being hopeful. Awareness of negative outcomes, information overload, physical and emotional depletion, and fear and uncertainty challenged parental hope. CONCLUSIONS: Developing a model that identifies the nature of parental hope as well as barriers and facilitators to maintaining hope shortly after childhood cancer diagnosis may assist healthcare professionals in supporting parents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Understanding parental hope may assist healthcare professionals to avoid overloading parents with too much information at once. Healthcare professionals can also ensure that social support from family, community, and the medical center is available for parents and that their physical and emotional needs are being met to ensure that they maintain hope to best care for their child with cancer.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".