Systematic review of factors associated with hope in family carers of persons living with chronic illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To identify factors associated with hope in family carers of persons living with chronic illness. DESIGN: A systematic review of quantitative and mixed method studies on hope in carers of persons living with chronic illness. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases (Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and PsycINFO) were searched from inception to 13 July 2020. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria were the following: (a) study population of adult (18 years of age and older) carers of persons living with chronic illness, (b) hope was measured as a variable, (c) reported factors associated with hope, (d) employed either quantitative or mixed methods design, (e) written in English and (f) was published in peer reviewed journals. All included studies were evaluated for quality using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included in the systematic review. Quality of life, physical and mental health, life satisfaction and the hope of care recipients were found to be positively associated with hope. Carer's coping increased (self-efficacy and caregiver preparedness) as hope increased with a decrease in maladaptive coping strategies. Anxiety, depression, distress, grief and guilt were negatively associated with carers' hope. Carers' hope did not appear to be associated with carer or care-recipient demographic variables. CONCLUSION: Carers' hope appears to be associated with the carers' over all positive health. The factors associated with carers' hope provide potential areas to focus intervention development such as strategies that increase self-efficacy. More research is needed to clarify if factors such as stage of disease and resilience are associated with hope. Research on carers' hope assessment and intervention development should also focus on factors associated with hope. IMPACT: The findings underscore the need to assess and work with carers of persons living with chronic illness to enhance their 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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".