4.2 Article

Hope in people with aphasia

期刊

APHASIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 41-58

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02687038.2012.718069

关键词

Hope; Aphasia; Rehabilitation; Stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hope is considered to be important for health, recovery, and rehabilitation outcomes in a range of healthcare populations. Little is known about hope in people following stroke, and even less is known about hope in people with aphasia following stroke as they are commonly excluded from research in this field. Aims: This study aimed to explore how hope was experienced by people with aphasia following stroke during the post-acute period of rehabilitation, and to identify factors influencing the experience of hope. Methods & Procedures: This study utilised an Interpretive Description methodology. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with five people with aphasia. Supported conversation techniques were used to facilitate full contribution of participants. Data were analysed using a number of approachescoding, thematic analysis, narrative construction, diagramming, and memoing. Outcomes & Results: Hope was experienced in two ways. Simply having hope was a broad but passive sense of hope which appeared to be the primary, constant form of hope. Actively hoping was an active, future-oriented form of hope that was experienced intermittently by participants. The experience of hope appeared dynamic and complex and seemingly influenced by three primary factors: uncertainty about the future; viewing hope as double-sided; and a sense of disruption. These were in turn influenced by a person's past experiences, present reality and perceived future. Conclusions: Hope is considered important by people with aphasia. It appears related to how people engage in rehabilitation and may be influenced by clinicians. As such, it is a concept that therapists should be aware of. Suggestions for how clinicians may consider and address hope are provided and discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据