Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35737454›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2022

Supporting People Who Have Lost a Close Person by Bereavement or Separation: Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two French-Language Internet-Based Interventions.

Anik Debrot, Maya Kheyar, Liliane Efinger, Laurent Berthoud, Valentino Pomini

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05219760 (LIVIA 2.0), which is not on this 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.

NCT05219760 nacompletednot on this map

LIVIA 2.0: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Two French Internet Intervention for Adults Struggling With Prolonged Grief Symptoms After the Loss of a Close One (by Bereavement or Separation/Divorce)

TypeinterventionalSponsorDebrot AnikRan2022 to 2023Enrolled64ConditionsProlonged Grief DisorderArmsLIVIA
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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.

Anik DebrotCognitive and Affective Regulation Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9681-7271
Maya KheyarCognitive and Affective Regulation Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7940-3504
Liliane EfingerCognitive and Affective Regulation Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7336-066X
Laurent BerthoudCognitive and Affective Regulation Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6575-9101
Valentino PominiCognitive and Affective Regulation Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4607-5708

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternet-based interventions (IBIs) are as efficient as face-to-face psychotherapy for a variety of mental health disorders, including complicated grief. Most evidence stems from guided IBIs. However, recent research indicates that the benefit of guidance is lower in more interactive IBIs. As such, providing guidance only to people requiring it (guidance on demand) appears a cost-effective solution. This is particularly important to develop given the recent rise in grief symptoms in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper presents the protocol of a randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and adherence rate of 2 IBIs for grief-related symptoms after the loss a close one following death or romantic separation, using a guidance on demand framework. LIVIA 2.0 was developed based on theoretical and empirical findings on grief processes and IBIs, and it will be compared to LIVIA 1 that has already demonstrated its efficacy.

objectiveOur main hypotheses are that LIVIA 1 (control condition) and LIVIA 2.0 (experimental condition) increase participants' well-being and decrease their distress at posttest and at follow-up, that LIVIA 2.0 is more efficient than LIVIA 1 for all outcomes, and that LIVIA 2.0 has less dropouts than LIVIA 1.

methodsOutcomes will be assessed at pretest, posttest (12 weeks later), and follow-up (24 weeks later). We will recruit 234 participants through a variety of means, including social media and contacts with the press. Primary outcomes are grief symptoms, depressive symptoms, and eudemonic well-being. Secondary outcomes are anxiety symptoms, grief coping strategies, aspects related to self-identity reorganization, and program satisfaction. LIVIA 2.0 participants will additionally undergo a weekly mood and grief symptom monitoring, allowing us to explore the short-term efficacy of the sessions.

resultsThe creation and development of the content of LIVIA 2.0 was completed during the first phase of the project. Participant recruitment will begin in May 2022 and will last until January 2023.

conclusionsThis study will emphasize the relevance of the innovations included in LIVIA 2.0 regarding the efficacy and dropout rate of IBIs for grief symptoms and will allow investigations on how these changes impact the demand for guidance. In the current postpandemic times, developing and assessing IBIs targeting grief symptoms are particularly critical given the rise in grief-related symptoms.

trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT05219760; https://tinyurl.com/3dzztjts. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/39026.

Indexed as

bereavementdigital healthdivorcegriefidentityinternet-based interventionsmental healthpsychotherapyseparation

Identifiers

PMID35737454
PMCPMC9264124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.