The Strength, Hope and Resourcefulness Program for People with Parkinson’s Disease: A Qualitative Investigation of Helpful Group Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by motor and non-motor features. Many people with PD struggle with mental health issues such as depression. Evidence shows that people with PD may have trouble adopting a hopeful or positive orientation given their diagnosis and symptoms. Psychological treatments for PD are scarce and even more scarce are treatments that specifically focus on promoting hope and well-being. The Strengths, Hope, and Resourcefulness Program for People with Parkinson’s Disease was developed to begin to address this treatment gap. This qualitative study used in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 15 participants to identify seven processes group members found helpful during treatment: Accessing Hope, Comparing, Drawing Together, Reaching Beyond Self, Releasing Emotion, Sharing Skills/Picking Up Resources, and Self-Reflecting/Personal Insight. The unique contributions of an intentional and explicit hope, strengths, and resources intervention are discussed with specific attention to therapeutic process and practice. This study was reviewed and approved by the Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Alberta (ID # Pro00065937).
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".