Experiences of family hope and hopelessness in the context of pregnancy and care for high-risk newborns
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.7906.4835Keywords:
Hope; Family; High-Risk Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Nursing Research; Family Nursing.Abstract
Objective: to understand family experiences of hope, from pregnancy to the care for high-risk newborns. Method: qualitative research, guided by the Theoretical Model for Understanding the Complex Nature of Hope, which took place in a multiprofessional outpatient clinic for high-risk newborn care. A total of 28 individuals from 14 families participated through oral history interviews. This allowed for the construction of family narratives, which were submitted to deductive thematic analysis. Results: family experiences of hope are established based on four dimensions: understanding, judgment, and interpretation about hope; affective aspects and feelings regarding the lived experience; actions, behaviors, and strategies that strengthen family hope; and influence of context and life situations. These are influenced by the temporality in which the family finds itself. At the beginning of the experience of risk, hope appears fragile and uncertain, with negative feelings and desires for better days. Over time, strategies, such as spirituality and intrapersonal relationship skills, are strengthened and maintained, reframing feelings. Conclusion: understanding family experiences of hope and hopelessness can enable healthcare providers to strengthen and contribute to a more positive experience in the presence of gestational and neonatal risk.
Downloads
References
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.
