Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41937834›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

The Range of Response to Loss: an innovative theory of grief and a framework for use in practice and research.

Linda Machin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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

1 author.

Linda MachinFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper describes the development and authentication of the Range of Response to Loss (RRL), an innovative theoretical model for understanding loss and grief. The model references existing theories on loss and grief while also providing a paradigm shift in defining the dynamics of grief, which have then become embedded into its practice and research application. The RRL model evolved over four decades and consists of three developmental phases. Phase one comprised an intersectional analysis of my practice observations and research with existing theories of grief. This resulted in a new three-category conceptual framework capturing the range of responses prompted by loss: overwhelmed, controlled and resilient. This then led to devising a novel measure to support validation of the proposed concepts in the framework: the nine-item Adult Attitude to Grief (AAG) scale. The research process, which took place in a practice setting, supported the RRL concepts. In addition, an unexpected outcome was that practitioners involved in the research highlighted the potential for the AAG scale to be used as a practice tool that could both quantitatively capture an individual's response, and also enable a qualitative exploration of their experience. In phase two this clinical perspective led to considering a fourth concept, vulnerability, a key presenting factor in practice. I looked at the implications of this in the light of changing theoretical perspectives on loss and grief. This then led to considering the nature of the inter-relationship between the four concepts and the consequences for the structure of the framework. The result was the reframing of the RRL into a two-dimensional model: (i) instinctive and spontaneous reactions to loss experienced and expressed on a spectrum from

Indexed as

Adult Attitude to Griefbereavement care practiceevaluationgrieflossRange of Response to Lossresearchtheory

Identifiers

PMID41937834
PMCPMC13050305

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.