4.2 Review

Understanding Hope After Stroke: A Systematic Review of the Literature Using Concept Analysis

Journal

TOPICS IN STROKE REHABILITATION
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages 490-508

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1310/tsr1805-490

Keywords

concept analysis; concept clarification; hope; rehabilitation; stroke; systematic review

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Hope is said to be important in recovery from illness or injury, supporting adjustment, perseverance, and positive outcomes. There has been little exploration of hope in people after stroke. This is reflected in the literature, which lacks consistent definition and terminology. This purpose of this article is to clarify the concept of hope after stroke and to synthesize the findings to propose a working model of hope. Method: A systematic literature search was completed. Articles were included if they explored hope from the perspective of people with stroke or if hope was reported as a key finding in a study. Coding, analytic questions, and matrices were used to extract data and to compare, contrast, and synthesize conceptualizations, processes, and outcomes of hope. This was guided by a concept analysis methodology. Results: The literature search identified 20 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of these articles suggested hope was conceptualized in 3 interrelated ways as an inner state, as being outcome-oriented, and as an active process. Findings suggested that internal and external resources contributed to the development of hope. Hope was perceived to be linked with positive outcomes and functioned as a motivator and source of strength through recovery. Hope reflected elements also found in the concepts of expectations, goals, and optimism. Conclusion: This novel approach to analysis has furthered the understanding of hope. It has proposed a working model of hope that could be used by clinicians in considering hope with their clients and patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available