MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341015900 · doi:10.1017/s147895151500019x

A singing choir: Understanding the dynamics of hope, hopelessness, and despair in palliative care patients. A longitudinal qualitative study

2015· article· en· W2341015900 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersZonMw
KeywordsPalliative careChoirSingingQualitative researchPsychologyNarrativeLongitudinal studyMetaphorReflexivityClinical psychologyMedicineNursingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Hope, despair, and hopelessness are dynamic in nature; however, they have not been explored over time. The objective of the present study was to describe hope, hopelessness, and despair over time, as experienced by palliative care patients. METHOD: We employed a qualitative longitudinal method based on narrative theories. Semistructured interviews with palliative care patients were prospectively conducted, recorded, and transcribed. Data on hope, hopelessness and despair were thematically analyzed, which led to similarities and differences between these concepts. The concepts were then analyzed over time in each case. During all stages, the researchers took a reflexive stance, wrote memos, and did member checking with participants. RESULTS: A total of 29 palliative care patients (mean age, 65.9 years; standard deviation, 14.7; 14 females) were included, 11 of whom suffered from incurable cancer, 10 from severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 8 from severe heart failure. They were interviewed a maximum of three times. Participants associated hope with gains in the past or future, such as physical improvement or spending time with significant others. They associated hopelessness with past losses, like loss of health, income, or significant others, and despair with future losses, which included the possibility of losing the future itself. Over time, the nature of their hope, hopelessness, and despair changed when their condition changed. These dynamics could be understood as voices in a singing choir that can sing together, alternate with each other, or sing their own melody. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our findings offer insight into hope, hopelessness, and despair over time, and the metaphor of a choir helps to understand the coexistence of these concepts. The findings also help healthcare professionals to address hope, hopelessness, and despair during encounters with patients, which is particularly important when the patients' physical condition has changed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it