Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32736489›Full record

SynthesisPalliative medicine2020

What elements of a systems' approach to bereavement are most effective in times of mass bereavement? A narrative systematic review with lessons for COVID-19.

Emily Harrop, Mala Mann, Lenira Semedo, Davina Chao, Lucy E Selman, Anthony Byrne

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Palliative medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emily HarropMarie Curie Research Centre, Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2820-0023
Mala MannMarie Curie Research Centre, Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2554-9265
Lenira SemedoMarie Curie Research Centre, Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Davina ChaoBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Lucy E SelmanPalliative and End of Life Care Research Group, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5747-2699
Anthony ByrneMarie Curie Research Centre, Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Marie Curie · GBAt Bristol · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe global COVID-19 pandemic has left health and social care systems facing the challenge of supporting large numbers of bereaved people in difficult and unprecedented social conditions. Previous reviews have not comprehensively synthesised the evidence on the response of health and social care systems to mass bereavement events.

aimTo synthesise the evidence regarding system-level responses to mass bereavement events, including natural and human-made disasters as well as pandemics, to inform service provision and policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

designA rapid systematic review was conducted, with narrative synthesis. The review protocol was registered prospectively (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, CRD 42020180723). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 2000 and 2020. Reference lists were screened for further relevant publications, and citation tracking was performed.

resultsSix studies were included reporting on system responses to mass bereavement following human-made and natural disasters, involving a range of individual and group-based support initiatives. Positive impacts were reported, but study quality was generally low and reliant on data from retrospective evaluation designs. Key features of service delivery were identified: a proactive outreach approach, centrally organised but locally delivered interventions, event-specific professional competencies and an emphasis on psycho-educational content.

conclusionDespite the limitations in the quantity and quality of the evidence base, consistent messages are identified for bereavement support provision during the pandemic. High quality primary studies are needed to ensure service improvement in the current crisis and to guide future disaster response efforts.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalBereavementGriefPandemicsSocial SupportCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19HumansPneumonia, ViralQualitative ResearchBereavementcoronavirus infectionsdisastersdisease outbreaksgriefpandemics

Identifiers

PMID32736489
PMCPMC7495712
OpenAlexW3044754699

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.