Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33086903›Full record

ReviewOmega2021

Bereavement in Times of COVID-19: A Review and Theoretical Framework.

Margaret Stroebe, Henk Schut

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Omega, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Margaret StroebeDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8468-3317
Henk SchutDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A review of the literature on adaptation to bereavement during the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted to assess the current state of knowledge. Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies published during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 outbreak. 44 articles were included in the review. Narrative synthesis showed that knowledge was largely based on expert assessments of prior bereavement research and professional experience; there is so far absence of empirical evidence linking features of COVID-19 bereavement situations to health outcomes. Severe negative consequences have been consistently predicted by authors. There is still relatively little consideration of positive or compensatory processes or the possibility that these could alleviate the effect of the shocking, traumatic circumstances. With two notable exceptions, there has been lack of attention to the role of theoretical models for guiding research and practice. A theoretical perspective (the Dual Process Model, DPM) was applied to the information derived from the available articles. Two features of the DPM framework illustrated its relevance: 1. It enables systematic assessment of the range of loss- and restoration-related challenges for the bereaved; 2. It speaks for extension of psychotherapeutic intervention to manage secondary, restoration- as well as primary, loss-oriented stressors; studies have demonstrated that this may increase the effectiveness of intervention. Directions for future research and DPM application are suggested.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalBereavementCOVID-19HumansQuarantinebereavementCOVID-19dual process modelgriefhealthpandemicreviewtheory

Identifiers

PMID33086903
PMCPMC7756059

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.