ArticleBMC public health2026
Comparing user satisfaction with grief-informed texts to other types of bereavement support in the United Kingdom.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGrief following the death of a loved one is a painful human experience, and yet bereaved people often have trouble getting the right grief support. In 2022, the UK Commission on Bereavement found significant deficits in the availability, accessibility, length, and helpfulness of bereavement services. Around that time, a national charity in the UK piloted Grief Coach, a low-cost, scalable, text message-based grief support program with the potential to fill gaps in bereavement services. This research assessed user satisfaction with Grief Coach, how user satisfaction ratings compared with ratings of other types of informal and formal grief support received, and whether there were differences in risk level, assessed using measures of well-being and loss-related vulnerability, of those who used Grief Coach only vs. with formal grief support.
methods1631 Grief Coach subscribers enrolled three months or longer were texted a link to an online survey. UK residents aged 18 + who experienced a death within the past 5 years continued to the survey that assessed demographics, types of grief services received, ratings of perceived availability, accessibility, length, and helpfulness of Grief Coach and the other services, well-being using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, and loss-related vulnerability using the Adult Attitude to Grief Scale.
results430 program enrollees (26.4%) responded to the survey, and 314 (73.0%) met the inclusion criteria. In that group, 91.7% expressed satisfaction with Grief Coach's availability, 95.3% accessibility, 82.5% length, and 92.9% helpfulness. In paired t-tests, Grief Coach was rated significantly higher at p < .001 in availability, accessibility, length, and helpfulness than self-help resources, social support, and general practitioner support, and higher in availability, accessibility, and length than peer counseling and therapy. No differences emerged between Grief Coach vs. support groups or funeral directors. There were no significant differences in well-being and loss vulnerability among grievers who used Grief Coach only vs. Grief Coach + formal grief support.
conclusionsFindings demonstrate strong satisfaction with the availability, accessibility, length, and helpfulness of text message-based grief support. Longitudinal research is needed to identify how and for whom text messaging can best fill gaps in bereavement services.
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.