HOPE IN THE NURSING HOME: RELATION WITH QUALITY OF LIFE, FUNCTION, PAIN, SOCIAL SUPPORT, RELIGIOSITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hope is an important factor influencing the quality and quantity of life in patients with chronic diseases. We aimed to assess the association between hope and quality of life, physical function, pain, social support, and religiosity among nursing home residents. Residents in four homes for the aged in Jerusalem were included in the study. IRB approval and informed consent were obtained. Level of hope was assessed by the Herth Hope Index (score range 12–48); quality of life by the WHO Quality of Life-BREF instrument (physical health, psychological, social relationships, and environment domains); physical function by the Barthel Index; pain by the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire; and social support by the Social Support Questionnaire for Transactions (SSQT) and Social Support Questionnaire for Satisfaction (SSQS). Residents defined their religiosity as secular, traditional, or religious. There were 100 participants (63 females, 37 males; mean age 80.9 years); 25 secular, 37 traditional, and 38 religious. The mean Herth Hope Index score was 33 ± 4. Level of hope was correlated with the physical (r=0.479, p<0.001), psychological (r=0.759, p<0.001), social (r=0.567, p<0.001), and environment (r=0.532, p<0.001) domains of quality of life. Hope correlated positively with level of physical function (r=0.205, p=0.04), inversely with pain intensity (r=-0.215, p=0.032), positively with social support (p<0.001) and positively with level of religiosity (r=0.266, p=0.008). In this population, higher quality of life and physical function, lower pain intensity, better social support, and greater religiosity were associated with higher levels of hope, emphasizing the importance of interventions to foster hope.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".