Hope in palliative care: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe the current status of research on hope in palliative care. METHODS: Integrative review was conducted to determine current knowledge on the topic. CINAHL and PubMed MEDLINE databases were used to find the articles relevant to this review. The data consisted of 34 articles on hope and palliative care published in peer-reviewed journals. A qualitative approach utilizing content analysis was used in this review. RESULTS: There are at least two overarching themes of patients' hope in the palliative context: "living with hope" and "hoping for something" which however are not separate contents. Several instruments for measuring hope in a palliative context have been produced. However, future research is needed to gather further validity evidence for these instruments. Factors related to patients, other people (e. g. significant others), illness, care and context contribute to or threaten patient hope. Hope of the significant other was defined as an inner force. However, the main concern for caregivers was "hanging on to hope" in spite of eroding effects on hope caused by different factors, for example in the health care system. Also significant others' hope in a palliative care context has been measured, but the results of the studies appear inconsistent. Nurses' reflection in action, affirmation of the patient's worth, working with the patient, considering the patient in a holistic sense were the main hope-engendering interventions generated from this review. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH: Hope is important in both living and dying. The majority of the hope research in a palliative context focuses on patient hope and factors influencing patient hope. Research on hope in significant others and nurses in palliative care is scant. More research is needed about the factors threatening patient hope, hope in significant others, and interventions to engender hope in palliative and their outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".