| Literature DB >> 26556412 |
Andy Soundy1, Clive Liles1, Brendon Stubbs2, Carolyn Roskell1.
Abstract
Hope and hopelessness are important psychological constructs that physiotherapists should consider when working with patients who have experienced a stroke. The view of hope in rehabilitation is often focused around the concept of goals and how hope works within this framework. However, the current paper proposes a broader framework for hope and the importance of a more generalised view of understanding why a certain hope exists or is identified by a patient. A narrative review using an a priori thematic analysis was undertaken to consider how more generalised hopes are expressed by individuals who have suffered a stroke. An electronic search of 4 databases from inception until April 2014 was undertaken. Qualitative articles were included if they considered the concept of hope for patients who had suffered a stroke. The results identified three themes which included (1) consideration of the patient's identity/identities, (2) meaningful activities, experiences, and interactions, and (3) the experience of suffering and need for relief. An awareness of patients' generalised hopes should be a priority for HCPs. Detailed implications for HCPs are identified within the discussion.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 26556412 PMCID: PMC4590961 DOI: 10.1155/2014/471874
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Med ISSN: 2314-758X
Figure 1Illustrating the framework of hope.
Demographic information of individuals included.
| Author | n | Gender, marital status, and age | Type of injury | COREQ summary (/32) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Arnaert (2006) [ | 8 | 4 male, 4 female | 7 ischemic | 19/32 |
|
| ||||
| Bays (2001) [ | 9 | 3 male | 6 right hemispheric strokes | 20/32 |
|
| ||||
| Wiles (2002) [ | 13 | 8 male | No diagnostic information available. | 21/32 |
|
| ||||
|
Barker (2005) [ | 19 | 12 male | 12 left sided weaknesses | 21/32 |
|
| ||||
|
Tutton (2012) [ | 10 | 7 male, 3 female | No diagnostic information available | 19/32 |
|
| ||||
| Lutz (2011) [ | 19 | 11 male, 8 female | No diagnostic information available | 19/32 |
|
| ||||
| Kouwenhoven (2011) [ | 9 | 3 male, 6 female | 3 left infarctions | 22/32 |
|
| ||||
| Hartigan (2011) [ | 10 | 5 female, 5 male | No diagnostic information | 18/32 |
|
| ||||
| Cross (2010) [ | 10 | 10 female | No diagnostic information | 22/32 |
|
| ||||
| Bright (2013) [ | 5 | 2 female, 3 male | 4 left infarctions | 21/32 |
Note: studies denoted by the first author.
The summary of correctly scored domains of the COREQ (Tong et al., 2007) [34] appraisal for the 4 included studies.
| Author/year of publication | Domain 1 (/8) research team and reflexivity | Domain 2 (/15) study design | Domain 3 (9) analysis and findings | Total (/32) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Arnaert (2006) [ | 5 | 8 | 6 | 19 |
| Bays (2001) [ | 4 | 8 | 8 | 20 |
| Wiles (2002) [ | 4 | 12 | 6 | 22 |
| Barker (2005) [ | 4 | 10 | 7 | 21 |
|
Tutton (2012) [ | 5 | 8 | 6 | 19 |
| Lutz et al. (2011) [ | 4 | 9 | 6 | 19 |
|
Kouwenhoven (2011) [ | 4 | 11 | 7 | 22 |
| Hartigan (2011) [ | 4 | 8 | 6 | 18 |
| Cross (2010) [ | 4 | 12 | 6 | 22 |
|
Bright (2013) [ | 4 | 11 | 6 | 21 |
|
| ||||
| Mean | 4.2 | 9.7 | 6.4 |
|
| Median | 4 | 9.5 | 6 |
|
Note: studies denoted by the first author.