Therapeutic letters: A qualitative study exploring their influence on the hope of parents of children receiving pediatric palliative care in Portugal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to explore the hope experiences of parents of children diagnosed with complex chronic conditions (CCCs) who received therapeutic letters. DESIGN AND METHODS: A purposive sample of 10 parents of inpatient children with CCCs was recruited from a pediatric palliative care unit in a Portuguese public hospital. A demographic form and audio-recorded semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with each participant to explore the experiences, processes, and meanings of hope, and to describe how parents of children receiving pediatric palliative care perceived the usefulness of receiving therapeutic letters. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and using a thematic analysis, a systematic approach to data analysis was completed. FINDINGS: Data analysis resulted in three main themes including Trust in the Future; Strengthening Hope; and Moments of Hope. Findings highlight the positive influence of therapeutic letters including supporting parental hope, facilitating personal inner-strengthening, recognition of parental skills, and promotion of self-efficacy during hospitalization. The themes and related subthemes add value to the existing literature and highlight the need for supportive palliative nursing care aimed at promoting parental hope. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To optimize the value of supporting parental hope, therapeutic letters can be delivered at the time of diagnosis, during times of celebration, and when learning the difficult tasks of daily childcare. Additional research can inform the development of a formal hope-based intervention to provide an evidence base from which to enhance the well-being of parental caregivers of children who have CCCs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".