Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41777664›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2026

Women's preferred language for screening for reproductive grief.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

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

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Research suggests that grief after reproductive loss can become a complicated form of grief that persists over time and disrupts daily living. Our goal in the present study was to investigate the wording of items on a previously studied tool, the Reproductive Grief Screen, that could be used to screen patients for complicated grief. Methods: We analyzed data from 27 qualitative interviews and 282 survey respondents to assess the opinions of women who had experienced reproductive loss about the wording of each item on the screening tool. Results: Results confirmed that the language in three of the five items was problematic (i.e., triggering, confusing, or too wordy), requiring revision. Two of the three revised items were supported, but the third item wording still did not reach agreement. Conclusion: Participants were sensitive to the language used in the initial version of the reproductive screening tool. One item still needs additional clarification before determination of the optimal wording. Innovation: Including women who have experienced reproductive loss and grief in the development of a new reproductive grief screening survey is a novel approach for creating and refining a clinical tool. Additionally, using chi-square item testing as part of early scale development offers an alternative to correlational approaches. Findings suggest that the new screening tool is necessary for modernizing the standard of care provided to women who experience reproductive loss and to identify those with complicated grief after reproductive loss in a manner that is compassionate and sensitive to patients' needs.

Indexed as

Complicated griefReproductive lossScreening tool

Identifiers

PMID41777664
PMCPMC12950408

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.