Hope, expectations and recovery from illness: a narrative synthesis of qualitative research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a narrative literature review conducted to explore how expectations and wants are distinguished in empirical research on hope and illness and the related issues of realistic hope and temporality. BACKGROUND: Particularized hope has been identified as comprising wants and expectations. The distinction is important in relation to debates around 'realistic' hopes, the temporal dimension of hope and hope-sustaining strategies. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of the literature was undertaken for qualitative research papers published between January 1996 and July 2007 relating to hope and recovery in adults with physical ill health. Seven papers were identified. REVIEW METHODS: A narrative synthesis approach was adopted and the papers were appraised for quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme method. Textual descriptions and tabulation were used to compare central themes and thematic analysis was used to explore the findings. RESULTS: A lack of conceptual clarity in relation to hope as a want or an expectation was identified. Healthcare professionals' role in encouraging 'realistic' hopes emerged as problematic because of the lack of understanding about the possible benefits of hope and difficulties in identifying 'realistic' hopes. There has been limited research exploring temporality and the impact of hope-sustaining activities. CONCLUSION: The lack of clarity about particularized hope, its dimensions, properties or different forms limits knowledge about the conditions under which hope is a positive force versus when it can be damaging. Distinguishing conceptually between hope as a want and hope as an expectation has potential value in improving healthcare practice and informing future investigations.
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 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".