MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231695991 · doi:10.1177/030089161209800317

Hope Herth Index (HHI): A Validation Study in Italian Patients with Solid and Hematological Malignancies on Active Cancer Treatment

2012· article· en· W4231695991 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carla Ripamonti, Loredana Buonaccorso, Alice Maruelli, Elena Bandieri, Stefania Boldini, M.A. Pessi, Francesca Chiesi, Guido Miccinesi

Bibliographic record

VenueTumori Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaMedicineAnxietyPopulationInternal medicineConcordanceClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychometricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims and background Although hope is a widely used term, the experience of hope in patients with chronic or even life-threatening diseases is often disregarded due to the scarcity of carefully designed and validated assessment tools. The aim of this study was to validate the Hope Herth Index (HHI) questionnaire in the Italian population of patients with solid or hematological malignancies during active cancer treatment. Methods After the translation procedures, the psychometric properties of the Italian version of HHI were evaluated in 266 patients with non-advanced cancer cared for in four different settings. Summative scores ranged from 12–48, with a higher score denoting greater hope. Confirmative factorial analysis was performed to assess dimensionality. The test-retest reliability was assessed by means of the Lin concordance coefficient (two weeks' interval, 80 patients). Concurrent validity was assessed through the following questionnaires: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being (FACIT-Sp), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and System Belief Inventory (SBI-15R). Results A total of 266 patients were enrolled. Confirmative factor analysis did not confirm the original three-factor solution, whereas a one-factor solution did perform well. Cronbach's alpha was 0.84 and the test-retest reliability was 0.64 (95% CI 0.51; 0.76). Large convergence was found with spiritual well-being as measured by the FACIT-Sp (0.69) and with anxiety-depression as measured by the HADS (inverse correlation: –0.51). Physical symptoms and religiousness were only slightly correlated, as expected. Conclusions The Italian version of HHI is a valid and reliable assessment tool – useful to initiate conversation with someone who is troubled but finds it difficult to talk – in patients with either solid or hematological malignancies on active cancer treatment during the non-advanced stages of the disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTumori JournalSame topicOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207