ArticlePloS one2019
The role of hope for health professionals in rehabilitation: A qualitative study on unfavorable prognosis communication.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coproducing an intervention to support stroke unit staff to provide information about recovery to patients and carers.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Qualitative study of the stigma associated with the lived experiences of Buruli ulcer disease among patients in Nigeria.International health · 2024Article
- Perceptions on the current content and pedagogical approaches used in end-of-life care education among undergraduate nursing students: a qualitative, descriptive study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Influencing factors of treatment and prognosis perceptions among advanced cancer patients: a cross-sectional study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Communicating uncertainty: contrasting the communication experiences of patients with advanced COPD and incurable lung cancer.Family practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe communication of prognosis represents an ethical and clinical challenge in medical practice due to the inherent uncertain character of prognostic projections. The literature has stressed that the mode of communicating prognoses has an impact on patients' hope, which is considered to play a major role in adapting to illness and disability. In light of this, this study aims to explore health professionals' (HPs) perceptions of the role of hope in rehabilitation and to examine if and how they use strategies to maintain hope when discussing prognostic information with patients.
methodsEleven qualitative semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of HPs were conducted at two rehabilitation clinics in the Canton of Ticino, Switzerland. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.
resultsThe HPs perceive hope in rehabilitation as a double-edged sword. Three main strategies were identified to maintain hope while avoiding false hope: 1) giving space for self-evaluation; 2) tailoring the communication of prognostic information; and 3) supporting the patient in dealing with the prognosis. These strategies are particularly suitable when HPs consider that patients might not be ready to accept the prognosis, due to their expectations for recovery.
conclusionsThe strategies identified here support a person-centered approach to the communication of prognosis and are in line with existing protocols for the communication of unfavorable medical information. The findings emphasize the need for strengthening communication and inter-professional collaboration skills of rehabilitation HPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.