Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29754514›Full record

ArticlePalliative medicine2018

What sources of bereavement support are perceived helpful by bereaved people and why? Empirical evidence for the compassionate communities approach.

Samar M Aoun, Lauren J Breen, Ishta White, Bruce Rumbold, Allan Kellehear

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Palliative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
18.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 173 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A primary care approach to bereavement.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Samar M Aoun1 Palliative Care Unit, Department of Public Health, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4073-4805
Lauren J Breen3 School of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Ishta White3 School of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Bruce Rumbold1 Palliative Care Unit, Department of Public Health, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Allan Kellehear4 School of Nursing and Healthcare Leadership, Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Curtin University · AULa Trobe University · AUUniversity of Bradford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo determine who provides bereavement support in the community, what sources are perceived to be the most or least helpful and for what reason, and to identify the empirical elements for optimal support in developing any future compassionate communities approach in palliative care.

designA population-based cross-sectional investigation of bereavement experiences. Sources of support (informal, community and professional) were categorised according to the Public Health Model of Bereavement Support; most helpful reasons were categorised using the Social Provisions Scale, and least helpful were analysed using inductive content analysis. SETTING AND

participantsBereaved people were recruited from databases of funeral providers in Australia via an anonymous postal survey (2013-2014).

resultsIn total, 678 bereaved people responded to the survey. The most frequently used sources of support were in the informal category such as family, friends and funeral providers. While the professional category sources were the least used, they had the highest proportions of perceived unhelpfulness whereas the lowest proportions of unhelpfulness were in the informal category. The functional types of helpful support were Attachment, Reliable Alliance, Social Integration and Guidance. The five themes for least helpful support were: Insensitivity, Absence of Anticipated Support, Poor Advice, Lack of Empathy and Systemic Hindrance.

conclusionA public health approach, as exemplified by compassionate communities policies and practices, should be adopted to support the majority of bereaved people as much of this support is already provided in informal and other community settings by a range of people already involved in the everyday lives of those recently bereaved. This study has provided further support for the need to strengthen the compassionate communities approach, not only for end of life care for dying patients but also along the continuum of bereavement support.

Indexed as

BereavementEmpathyGriefSocial SupportAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFamilyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesTerminal Carebereavement supportcapacity buildingpalliative carePublic healthsocial support

Identifiers

PMID29754514
PMCPMC6088515
OpenAlexW2804707676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.