SynthesisHarvard review of psychiatry
The Efficacy of Bereavement Interventions: A Systematic Umbrella Review.
Synthesis in Harvard review of psychiatry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived opportunities and risks of using deepfake technology in grief treatment: a qualitative study among Dutch bereaved people and mental health care workers.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- Feasibility, acceptability and potential effects of internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy for prolonged grief.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- Article
- Caregivers for people in their last year of life.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
LEARNING
objectivesAfter participating in this CME activity, the psychiatrist should be better able to:• Summarize findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy of psychotherapeutic bereavement interventions.• Identify and apply key moderating factors (e.g., symptom severity, timing, age, gender) that influence intervention outcomes.• Analyze methodological limitations in the bereavement literature, including study design and review quality issues. ABSTRACT: In recent decades, there have been diverse reviews published on intervention program value for bereaved people. The variation and multiplicity of such reviews makes it difficult to obtain an overview of what is known about treatment effectiveness. In this systematic umbrella review, we explore the current knowledge base on psychotherapeutic bereavement intervention program efficacy. Thirty-three quantitative systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses published between January 2001 and October 2021 were included. Quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews criteria. Intervention efficacy was determined by rating overall conclusions into three categories according to strength of evidence: positive-unconditional, positive-conditional, and negative-no evidence. Our results indicate that bereavement interventions are generally helpful. Seven reviews indicated positive-unconditional support for bereavement interventions. Twenty-four reviews found positive-conditional support (i.e., some evidence of value, but efficacy did not apply in all circumstances or was constrained by database weaknesses or weak effects), and only two reviews indicated negative-no evidence for support. Notably, conclusions were generally limited by poor review quality and methodological concerns (e.g., lack of randomized controlled trials and follow-up studies). As such, we call for future empirical studies and review articles to abide by methodological quality standards. Furthermore, we recommend further study of the subgroup variables and intervention features that contribute to treatment efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.