Validation of a Brief Measure for Complicated Grief Specific to Reproductive Loss.

Objective Complicated grief reactions follow some pregnancy outcomes, like miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death, infant death, selective reduction, or termination of pregnancy. Stigma can delay treatment and worsen outcomes. Screening tools such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale detect complicated grief poorly, and specific tools for prolonged or complicated grief after a reproductive loss are cumbersome. In this study, a five-item questionnaire to detect complicated grief after reproductive loss of any type was designed and preliminary validated. Methods A questionnaire patterned after the extensively validated Brief Grief Questionnaire (BGQ) was created by a group of physicians and lay advocates to employ non-traumatic but specific language related to grief after miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death, infant death, selective reduction, or termination of pregnancy. One hundred and forty women at a large academic center were recruited in person and via social media to validate the questionnaire with well-studied instruments for anxiety (7-item Panic Disorder Severity Scale, PDSS), trauma (22-item Impact of Events Scale), and reproductive grief and depressive symptoms (33-item Perinatal Grief Scale [PGS]). Results The response rate was 74.9%. Of the 140 participants, 18 (12.8%) experienced their loss during high-risk pregnancies, and 65 (46.4%) were recruited via social media. Seventy-one (51%) respondents had a score > 4, a positive screen for the BGQ. On average, women experienced their loss 2 years prior to participation (IQR 1-5 years). Cronbach's alpha was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.69-0.83). The goodness of fit indices of the model met Fornell and Larker criteria (RMSEA = 0.167, CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.06). The AVE was 0.42 and the CR 0.78. Conclusions This investigator-created screening tool is internally consistent and meets preliminary criteria for discriminant validity. This tool can be refined prior to testing for sensitivity and specificity in screening for complicated grief after a reproductive loss.

Held and Heartfelt: Compounded Grief in Healthcare Professionals' Experiences of Pregnancy Loss.

The loss of a pregnancy can be an emotionally traumatic experience and the support or lack of support from professional care providers and systematic barriers within healthcare organizations impacts the grieving trajectory. Nearly half of the Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics story authors in this symposium indicated that they were healthcare professionals, which, to their surprise, did not buffer the shock and emotional trauma of the loss. For this subset of authors, reflections on the assets and perils of this juxtaposition in the caregiving dyad revealed unique professional and systematic practice gaps and presented opportunities for improvement. Themes of secrecy, shame, and guilt surrounding reproductive loss have been documented phenomena in research. Self-blame and complicated bereavement were also implicit topics in many of the stories where esoteric knowledge of healthcare structures and professional roles was present. Given the role that affiliation had in the healthcare professionals' stories, further research on the impact that occupation may have on prolonged or complicated grieving related to pregnancy loss should be considered. This analysis provides a unique opportunity to recommend improvements in the supportive care provided to those experiencing pregnancy loss and reproductive grief.

Uncovering Prolonged Grief Reactions Subsequent to a Reproductive Loss: Implications for the Primary Care Provider.

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of clinical guidelines for the routine assessment of maladaptive reproductive grief reactions in outpatient primary care and OB-GYN settings in the United States. Because of the disenfranchised nature of perinatal grief reactions, many clinicians may be apt to miss or dismiss a grief reaction that was not identified in the perinatal period. A significant number of those experiencing a reproductive loss exhibit signs of anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Reproductive losses are typically screened for and recorded numerically as part of a woman's well-visit intake, yet this process often fails to identify patients emotionally troubled by a prior pregnancy loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A summative content analysis of 164 recent website blogs from female participants who self-reported having experienced a miscarriage or abortion in their lifetime was conducted. The narratives were reviewed for details regarding the time span between the pregnancy loss and the composition of the blog post. The stories were analyzed for subsequent relationship problems and detrimental mental health conditions. Maladaptive reactions were contrasted for those that indicated a greater than 12 months' time-lapse and those who had not. RESULTS: More than a third (39.6%) of the women reported in the narrative that at least one year or more had passed since experiencing the miscarriage or abortion. For those women, the median time span between the loss and composing the blog was 4 years with a range of 47 years. Mental health conditions attributed to the reproductive loss by those who reported longer bereavement times included subsequent relationship problems, substance misuse, depression, suicidal ideation, and PTSD. The percent of reported maladaptive issues was more than double (136.9% vs. 63.6%) for those who reported that a year or more had passed since the loss of the pregnancy. DISCUSSION: Grief reactions following the loss of a pregnancy may be prolonged or delayed for several months which can contribute to adverse biopsychosocial outcomes. Recognition and treatment of maladaptive grief reactions following a pregnancy loss are critical. Screening methods should be enhanced for clinicians in medical office settings to help identify and expedite the appropriate mental health assistance.

Fostering Vicarious Resilience for Perinatal Palliative Care Professionals.

Background: The demands on healthcare professionals caring for families grappling with a life-limiting condition in an unborn or newly born child can be overwhelming. Clinicians working in emergency/trauma, hospice, and pediatric settings are already at high risk for burnout and compassion fatigue, which can leave healthcare institutions increasingly vulnerable to poor retention, absenteeism, and waning quality of care. The provision of exemplary palliative care requires a cohesive interdisciplinary team of seasoned professionals resilient to daily challenges. In September 2019, the American College of Gynecology, in a committee opinion, published standard of care guidelines for perinatal palliative care. This has created an impetus for exceptional caregiving and a greater demand for both physician and interdisciplinary healthcare provider education, training, and ongoing support that promotes truly beneficent care for pregnant patients confronted with life-limiting fetal conditions. Methods: A scoping review of the research literature was conducted in order to distinguish the barriers and facilitators of professional resiliency in perinatal palliative care. PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and EBSCO Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collections were systematically reviewed. Because of the paucity of studies specific to perinatal palliative care, several interviews of nurses and physicians in that field were conducted and analyzed for content distinctly pertaining to personal practices or workplace factors that support or hinder professional resiliency. Results: The research indicated that medical professionals often cite a lack of knowledge, inexperience using effective communication skills related to perinatal palliative care and bereavement, challenges with interdisciplinary collaboration, misconceptions about the role and function of palliative care in the perinatal or neonatal settings, moral distress, and workload challenges as encumbrances to professional satisfaction. Strategic implementation of facility-wide bereavement care training, effective communication modalities, and evidenced-based practical applications are critical components for a thriving perinatal palliative care team. Authentic formal and informal debriefing, peer mentoring, adequate caseloads, robust provider self-care practices, exceptional relational efficacy, and cultural and spiritual humility can foster personal growth and even vicarious resilience for perinatal palliative care professionals. Conclusions: Support should be strategic and multifaceted. The onus to implement salient measures to cultivate resilience in the perinatal palliative caregiver should not be only upon the individuals themselves but also upon prevailing regulatory governing bodies and healthcare institutions.