Hope Herth Index (HHI): a validation study in Italian patients with solid and hematological malignancies on active cancer treatment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Although hope is a widely used term, the experience of hope in patients with chronic or even life-threatening diseases is often disregarded due to the scarcity of carefully designed and validated assessment tools. The aim of this study was to validate the Hope Herth Index (HHI) questionnaire in the Italian population of patients with solid or hematological malignancies during active cancer treatment. METHODS: After the translation procedures, the psychometric properties of the Italian version of HHI were evaluated in 266 patients with non-advanced cancer cared for in four different settings. Summative scores ranged from 12-48, with a higher score denoting greater hope. Confirmative factorial analysis was performed to assess dimensionality. The test-retest reliability was assessed by means of the Lin concordance coefficient (two weeks' interval, 80 patients). Concurrent validity was assessed through the following questionnaires: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being (FACIT-Sp), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and System Belief Inventory (SBI-15R). RESULTS: A total of 266 patients were enrolled. Confirmative factor analysis did not confirm the original three-factor solution, whereas a one-factor solution did perform well. Cronbach's alpha was 0.84 and the test-retest reliability was 0.64 (95% CI 0.51; 0.76). Large convergence was found with spiritual well-being as measured by the FACIT-Sp (0.69) and with anxiety-depression as measured by the HADS (inverse correlation: -0.51). Physical symptoms and religiousness were only slightly correlated, as expected. CONCLUSIONS: The Italian version of HHI is a valid and reliable assessment tool - useful to initiate conversation with someone who is troubled but finds it difficult to talk - in patients with either solid or hematological malignancies on active cancer treatment during the non-advanced stages of the disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".