The experience of hope in dyads living with advanced chronic illness in Portugal: a longitudinal mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hope is an important resource that helps patients and families thrive during difficult times. Although several studies have highlighted the importance of hope in different contexts, its specific manifestations in the realm of advanced chronic illness need further exploration. In this study, we sought to elucidate the intricate interplay between the construct of hope and the lived experience of advanced chronic illness within patient-caregiver dyads. Our objectives were (a) to explore the dyadic experience of hope as a changing dynamic over time for patients living with advanced chronic illness and their informal caregivers and (b) to evaluate variations of hope and symptom burden across time. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal mixed-methods study with a convergent design between December 2020 and April 2021. Patients living with advanced chronic illness and informal caregivers participated as a dyad (n = 8). The Herth Hope Index scale was used to measure dyads' level of hope and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System was used to measure patients' symptom burden. Descriptive statistics were undertaken. A thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke was conducted to analyze dyadic interview data. Dyads' experience of hope was described by using the six dimensions of hope in the Model of Hope of Dufault and Martocchio. RESULTS: Dyadic scores of hope and patients' symptom burden were stable over time. The constructs of hope in dyads included "Living one day at the time," "Having inner force/strength," and "Maintaining good health." Changes in patterns of hope were captured for each dyad in their transition over time. Data converged for all dyads except one. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study show a constant presence of hope even in the face of adversity. Healthcare professionals must find ways to promote hope in dyads of patients living with advanced chronic diseases. Nurses play a pivotal role; dyadic interviews should be promoted to create a safe space for both patients and informal caregivers in order to share experiences. More research is needed to address patients' and informal caregivers' hope in chronic illness because current hope-based interventions primarily target cancer diagnoses.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".