A comparison of individual level risk factors for homelessness among older and younger adults: Findings in a homeless sample from Little Rock

Abstract

homeostasis, reflection or self-understanding, value relativism and tolerance, and acknowledgment of and dealing effectively with uncertainty. These core components offer a roadmap for defining wisdom, and for continuing to explore its determinants and underlying structure. But how does wisdom develop and change over the course of a lifetime? Can wisdom be taught, and if so, what are the necessary characteristics of wisdom? How does adversity affect wisdom? These questions remain unanswered. But elderly adults, particularly those who are facing the end of their lives in hospice care, are well-suited to reflect on these issues. This population is uniquely poised to reflect back on their lives overall, with a prominent awareness of adversity due to their terminal illness. Methods: This study provides a qualitative analysis of hospice patients’ perspectives on the concept of wisdom. A focus is given to patients’ understanding about the definition, characteristics, and development of wisdom, as well as their perspectives on how wisdom has changed throughout their lives as a result of their illness. Furthermore, patients’ responses are compared to the six core components of wisdom as an assessment of the theory’s applicability in this population. Twenty-five hospice patients are completing individualized, semi-structured, qualitative interviews about wisdom. Each patient’s interview, lasting an average of 60 minutes, is being digitally recorded and transcribed. Using grounded theory, each interview is being analyzed and coded by the research team to ascertain the most common emergent themes. Results: Five of the 25 interviews have been completed to date, thereby allowing for preliminary results. Thus far, the most common theme expressed by hospice patients is that wisdom requires learning from mistakes and life experience, with the majority of patients noting their level of wisdom has increased due to their terminal illness. Additionally, patients have most often reported the following characteristics as necessary for wisdom: 1) patience, 2) good communication, and 3) a willingness to self-reflect. When mapping patients’ responses to the six components of wisdom, they have most frequently endorsed the link between wisdom and pro-social attitudes (44%), dealing with uncertainty (20%), and social decision making (19%). Hospice patients have less frequently described a link between wisdom and emotional homeostasis (8%), reflection (8%), or tolerance (1%). Conclusions: The remaining 20 interviews will lead to finalized qualitative analysis for presentation and to a better understanding of how people conceptualize wisdom at the end of their lives.