Hope, health work and quality of life in families of stroke survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper reports a study to examine the relationships among hope, family health promotion, and quality of life after stroke, by testing hypotheses derived from the Developmental Model of Health and Nursing. BACKGROUND: Little attention has been given to the influences of family strengths on health promotion behaviours and quality of life after stroke. The majority of studies have focused on stroke survivors, not their spouses. METHOD: A descriptive, correlational study was carried out with 40 families of stroke survivors with moderate to severe functional impairments and their spouses. Both partners completed the Herth Hope Index (measure of hope), the Health Options Scale (measure of health work), the Reintegration to Normal Living Index (measure of quality of life) and a demographic questionnaire. RESULTS: For both partners, moderate, positive relationships were found between hope and health work (r = 0.52, r = 0.39, P < 0.01) and between hope and quality of life (r = 0.59, r = 0.32, P < 0.05). Family health work was positively associated with quality of life of stroke survivors (r = 0.50, P </= 0.001), but not their spouses. Spouses' employment status, number of supports and functional independence at discharge predicted 40.6% and 46.3% of the variance in quality of life for stroke survivors and spouses, respectively, with the combination of hope and health work contributing an additional 17.8% in predicting stroke survivors' quality of life but no additional variance to the prediction of spouses' quality of life. CONCLUSION: Theoretical relationships of the Developmental Model of Health and Nursing were supported for stroke survivors, but the model was less useful in explaining spouses' experiences of hope, health work and quality of life. Findings provide direction for identifying 'at risk' families and raise awareness of the contribution of caregiver burden to quality of life in families of stroke survivors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".