Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38076488›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

"There's no time limit on grief:" Women's perspectives on a novel reproductive grief screening tool.

Jennifer J Bute, Maria Brann, Cara Buskmiller, Michaelene Fredenburg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2023. 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

4 authors.

Jennifer J ButeDepartment of Communication Studies, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, USA.
Maria BrannDepartment of Communication Studies, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, USA.
Cara BuskmillerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA.
Michaelene FredenburgInstitute of Reproductive Grief Care, San Diego, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Women who have experienced reproductive loss (i.e., miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion) evaluated the usefulness of a novel screening tool, Reproductive Grief Screen (RGS), to identify patients struggling with ongoing, complicated grief. Methods: This mixed-methods study involved U.S. women who had experienced reproductive loss. Online data collection resulted in 27 interviews and 282 surveys completed. Perceptions of and preferences about RGS were thematically analyzed. Chi square analyses assessed relationships between demographics and tool preferences. Results: RGS validated women's experiences with grief after reproductive loss. Women noted their providers may be unaware of their loss(es). Participants requested periodic screening using RGS beginning shortly after a loss (or during new patient intake) and occurring regularly (e.g., annually). Overall, women preferred completing RGS online before an appointment, though preferences varied by demographics (i.e., age, time since loss). Participants want providers to compassionately discuss RGS results with them and offer appropriate resources. Conclusion: The RGS can help identify largely ignored grief after reproductive loss. Innovation: Findings from group and individual interviews and a survey of women who have coped with reproductive loss suggest that use of a brief RGS tool could reshape clinical practice to aid women who might be facing complicated grief. Moreover, women expressed clear preferences for how to implement use of the RGS in clinical contexts.

Indexed as

AbortionMiscarriageReproductive griefReproductive lossStillbirth

Identifiers

PMID38076488
PMCPMC10704326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.