Hope and interpersonal psychiatric/mental health nursing: a systematic review of the literature – part two
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the second of a two‐part article which reports on a systematic review of the literature that focuses on hope (inspiring hope) within interpersonal (counselling) focused psychiatric/mental health (P/MH) nursing. Part one focused on the first three substantive areas, whereas this article focuses on the remaining areas and the discussion points arising out of the review. The discussion points arising are: (1) despite the increasing attention to hope over the last three decades, there remains a distinct paucity of research pertaining to P/MH nurses and hope, hoping and hopelessness; (2) the research that has been undertaken thus far lacks a cumulative, sequential progressive focus and has more of a sporadic, disparate look to it; (3) there is a dearth of empirical work to underpin specific interventions; (4) this relative absence of empirical work means that P/MH nurses often have to look to allied and/or related disciplines for their hope‐related research; (5) there appears to be a disparity between the alleged importance of hope and the subsequent research activity; and (6) the research that does exist across different substantive areas appears to indicate that there might be common or shared basic psychosocial processes of hope inspiration, and thus the probability of a formal grounded theory; and this allows for idiosyncratic psychosocial processes for each substantive area. As a result of this review, the authors tentatively suggest that the inspiration of hope in P/MH nursing is grounded in the relationship established between nurse and person in need of hope, an emerging empirical finding that has obvious congruence and synchronicity with the philosophy and theory of a Peplauvian‐based approach to P/MH nursing.
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 | 0.015 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".