Differences in meanings made according to prolonged grief symptomatology.

This study investigated differences in specific meanings made following bereavement, according to participants' prolonged grief symptomatology. A survey of 580 bereaved adults (Mage = 61.6 years, 70.7% female) showed 13 meanings predicted symptomatology, with the largest differences between the two lower symptomatology groups and the high symptomatology group; the latter was more likely to report no meaning. The results provide further support for empirically distinct groups within the bereaved population, not only in terms of symptoms, etiology, outcomes, courses, and treatment responses, but also in their meanings made, and may assist in advancing meaning reconstruction interventions.

Building Community Capacity in Bereavement Support.

BACKGROUND: Most bereaved people do not require specialist intervention, yet building community capacity in providing bereavement support is underdeveloped. While family caregivers indicate a need for more information about bereavement, there is little evidence to guide what this information might contain. OBJECTIVE: The study's purpose was to inform bereavement support by determining the advice people bereaved through expected deaths in palliative care have for others in that situation. DESIGN: Four funeral providers posted a questionnaire to previous clients who had used their services 6 to 24 months prior and 678 bereaved people responded. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The sample size for this study comprised 265 bereaved people whose relative used palliative care services. MEASUREMENTS: The questionnaire comprised 82 questions about caregiving, bereavement support, current bereavement-related distress, and 2 open-ended questions concerning their bereavement, one of them on advice they have to other people in the same situation. RESULTS: Family caregivers (n = 140) of people who received palliative care responded to the open-ended question about advice for others. An open content analysis yielded 3 themes-preparations for bereavement, utilizing social networks, and strategies for dealing with grief. CONCLUSIONS: Bereaved family caregivers' experiential knowledge can be harnessed to progress the development of bereavement care strategies for the good of the community. These responses could be incorporated into information brochures, posters, and other community education avenues in order to upskill palliative care bereavement volunteers and the wider community so that bereaved family caregivers are best supported.

Who needs bereavement support? A population based survey of bereavement risk and support need.

This study identifies and describes the profiles of bereavement risk and support needs of a community sample in Australia and tests the fit of the data with the three-tiered public health model for bereavement support. Family members who were bereaved 6-24 months prior to the survey and who were clients of four funeral providers participated (May-July 2013). A postal survey was used to collect information about bereaved people's experience of caring and perceived satisfaction with any bereavement support provided. The questionnaire included a validated risk assessment screening measure for Prolonged Grief Disorder (PG-13). A total of 678 bereaved people responded. The model predicted that 60% of the sample would be low risk, 30% moderate risk, and 10% high risk. Actual figures were very close at 58.4%, 35.2% and 6.4% respectively. The analysis of the demographic characteristics, experience and impact of caring and bereavement, and satisfaction with support received from a variety of sources revealed differential experiences and needs that align with the expectation of low, moderate, and high bereavement support need, as articulated in the public health model. This is the first empirical test of the public health model of bereavement support. As there is a lack of clear evidence to guide development and allocation of bereavement support programs, the findings have the potential to inform the ability of services, community organizations and informal networks to prioritize care according to each level of bereavement need. This is essential to achieve cost-effective and equitable resource allocation.