Grief, bereavement and prolonged grief disorder: scoping and mapping the evidence.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Gary Raine, Claire Khouja, Meena Khatwa, Helen Fulbright, Katy Sutcliffe, Amanda J Sowden
{"title":"Grief, bereavement and prolonged grief disorder: scoping and mapping the evidence.","authors":"Gary Raine, Claire Khouja, Meena Khatwa, Helen Fulbright, Katy Sutcliffe, Amanda J Sowden","doi":"10.1192/bjo.2025.10050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Some individuals experience abnormally persistent and intense symptoms of grief that significantly interfere with daily functioning. This condition has been described using terms such as complicated or prolonged grief and prolonged grief disorder (PGD).</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To identify the availability of evidence addressing a range of policy relevant issues related to grief, bereavement and PGD. In this paper we focus on the availability of evidence from systematic reviews.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched 12 databases and the websites of 18 grief- or bereavement-related organisations. Using key characteristics extracted from included reviews, we produced a high-level overview of the available evidence that enabled potential research gaps to be identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 212 reviews - 103 focused on people's experiences of grief/bereavement including service use; 22 reported on PGD prevalence, 42 on PGD risk factors, 37 on factors that influence grief more broadly and 80 on the effectiveness of grief-related interventions. Fifty-five reviews focused on multiple issues of interest. Half of reviews focused on a specific cause/type of death (<i>n</i> = 108). Of these reviews, most focused on three main causes/types of death: a specific health condition or terminal illness (<i>n</i> = 36), perinatal loss (<i>n</i> = 34) and suicide (<i>n</i> = 20).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified a large number of reviews, but key evidence gaps exist, particularly in relation to intervention cost-effectiveness and social, organisational or structural-level interventions that are needed for addressing inequities and other modifiable factors that can impair grieving and potentially increase the risk of PGD.</p>","PeriodicalId":9038,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Open","volume":"11 4","pages":"e149"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12247072/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10050","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Some individuals experience abnormally persistent and intense symptoms of grief that significantly interfere with daily functioning. This condition has been described using terms such as complicated or prolonged grief and prolonged grief disorder (PGD).

Aims: To identify the availability of evidence addressing a range of policy relevant issues related to grief, bereavement and PGD. In this paper we focus on the availability of evidence from systematic reviews.

Method: We searched 12 databases and the websites of 18 grief- or bereavement-related organisations. Using key characteristics extracted from included reviews, we produced a high-level overview of the available evidence that enabled potential research gaps to be identified.

Results: We identified 212 reviews - 103 focused on people's experiences of grief/bereavement including service use; 22 reported on PGD prevalence, 42 on PGD risk factors, 37 on factors that influence grief more broadly and 80 on the effectiveness of grief-related interventions. Fifty-five reviews focused on multiple issues of interest. Half of reviews focused on a specific cause/type of death (n = 108). Of these reviews, most focused on three main causes/types of death: a specific health condition or terminal illness (n = 36), perinatal loss (n = 34) and suicide (n = 20).

Conclusions: We identified a large number of reviews, but key evidence gaps exist, particularly in relation to intervention cost-effectiveness and social, organisational or structural-level interventions that are needed for addressing inequities and other modifiable factors that can impair grieving and potentially increase the risk of PGD.

悲伤,丧亲之痛和长期悲伤障碍:范围和映射的证据。
背景:一些个体经历异常持续和强烈的悲伤症状,严重干扰日常功能。这种情况被描述为复杂或延长悲伤和延长悲伤障碍(PGD)等术语。目的:确定与悲伤、丧亲之痛和PGD相关的一系列政策相关问题的证据的可用性。在本文中,我们着重于系统评价证据的可得性。方法:我们检索了12个数据库和18个悲伤或丧亲相关组织的网站。利用从纳入的综述中提取的关键特征,我们对现有证据进行了高层次的概述,从而能够识别潜在的研究差距。结果:我们确定了212条评论- 103条关注人们的悲伤/丧亲经历,包括服务使用;22个报告了PGD的患病率,42个报告了PGD的风险因素,37个报告了更广泛地影响悲伤的因素,80个报告了与悲伤有关的干预措施的有效性。55篇评论集中在多个感兴趣的问题上。一半的评论集中于特定的死因/死亡类型(n = 108)。在这些审查中,大多数侧重于三种主要的死亡原因/类型:特定的健康状况或绝症(n = 36),围产期损失(n = 34)和自杀(n = 20)。结论:我们确定了大量的综述,但存在关键的证据差距,特别是在干预的成本效益和社会、组织或结构层面的干预方面,这些干预是解决不平等和其他可改变的因素所需要的,这些因素可能会损害悲伤并潜在地增加PGD的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BJPsych Open
BJPsych Open Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
610
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Announcing the launch of BJPsych Open, an exciting new open access online journal for the publication of all methodologically sound research in all fields of psychiatry and disciplines related to mental health. BJPsych Open will maintain the highest scientific, peer review, and ethical standards of the BJPsych, ensure rapid publication for authors whilst sharing research with no cost to the reader in the spirit of maximising dissemination and public engagement. Cascade submission from BJPsych to BJPsych Open is a new option for authors whose first priority is rapid online publication with the prestigious BJPsych brand. Authors will also retain copyright to their works under a creative commons license.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信