Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35493360›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2022

Prognosticating COVID Therapeutic Responses: Ambiguous Loss and Disenfranchised Grief.

Harjinder Kaur-Aujla, Kate Lillie, Christopher Wagstaff

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Harjinder Kaur-AujlaInstitute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Kate LillieInstitute of Clinical Sciences, Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom.
Christopher WagstaffInstitute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventionally, therapeutic assessments, interventions, and treatments have focussed on death-related "losses and grief" responses. It is purported that the COVID-19 aftermath has resulted in losses that cannot always be encapsulated using this method. In search of reasoning, models and theories that explain the sweeping mass destruction that COVID-19 has caused, key concepts arise in terms of how we should deal with losses and in turn support patients in the health and social care sector, (notwithstanding formal therapeutic services). There is a crucial need to embrace ambiguous loss and disenfranchised grief into everyday terminology and be acquainted with these issues, thereby adapting how services/clinicians now embrace loss and grief work. Integral to this process is to recognize that there has been a disproportionate impact on Black and minority ethnic communities, and we now need to ensure services are "seriously culturally competent." Primary Care services/IAPT/health and social care/voluntary sector are all likely to be at the forefront of delivering these interventions and are already established gatekeepers. So, this article discusses the prognostic therapeutic response to non-death related losses and grief, not restricted to the formal echelons of therapeutic provision.

Indexed as

COVID-19Disenfranchised GriefGriefHumansSocial SupportBAMECOVIDgrieflossprimary caretherapy

Identifiers

PMID35493360
PMCPMC9039248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.