Harmonizing hope: A grounded theory study of the experience of hope of registered nurses who provide palliative care in community settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the hope experience of registered nurses (RNs) who provide palliative care services in community settings. The specific aims of the study were to (1) describe their hope experience, (2) develop a reflexive understanding of the processes of their hope, and (3) construct a substantive theory of hope of palliative care RNs. METHODS: Using constructivist grounded theory methodology, purposeful theoretical sampling was used to enroll 14 practicing community palliative care RNs in the study. Twenty-seven open-ended telephone interviews were conducted and nine daily journal entries on hope were copied. Interviews and journals were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using Charmaz's grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Participants described their hope as a positive state of being involving a perseverant and realistic understanding of future possibilities. Their hope sustained and motivated them, and helped them to strive to provide high-quality care. The main concern for participants was keeping their hope when faced with work life challenges and contrasting viewpoints (i.e., when their hopes differed from the hopes of others around them). They dealt with this through harmonizing their hope by the processes of "looking both ways," "connecting with others," "seeing the bigger picture," and "trying to make a difference." Their experience of hope was defined within the social context of their work and lives. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The results of this study suggest that hope is very important to palliative care RNs, in that it helps them to persevere and sustains them when faced with work life challenges in their practice. This study also highlights the need for continued research in this area as there appears to be a lack of evidence on the meaning of hope for healthcare professionals, and, in particular, understanding hope in the context of palliative and end-of-life care delivery.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".