Outcome Evaluation of Bereavement Groups for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Individuals with intellectual disabilities respond to loss in similar ways to other individuals. Bereavement interventions, whether provided individually or in a group, need to be planned according to the person's understanding, presenting symptoms, psychological functioning and support system. Measuring the effectiveness of such interventions is critical in order to increase our knowledge of useful interventions for this population. The present authors discuss individual and group bereavement therapy, and outline the goals and approaches used in their bereavement groups for adults with intellectual disabilities. Methods Individuals referred for bereavement group therapy were interviewed and assessed prior to their participation in the group. Measures of depression, anxiety, and knowledge of death and bereavement issues were administered before and after group participation. Results Scores for depression were significantly lower following group participation. However, scores for anxiety were mild and not significantly reduced. The participants' understanding and knowledge of the bereavement process did not improve significantly. When those with single and dual diagnosis were considered separately, those with a dual diagnosis experienced a significant decrease in depression, while those with a single diagnosis did not. Furthermore, depression scores for those with a dual diagnosis were generally higher. Conclusions The present preliminary investigation of therapeutic outcomes for bereavement group intervention suggests little change in anxiety and knowledge of death/bereavement issues, but significant improvement in symptoms of depression for participants, particularly those with a dual diagnosis. The weaknesses of the present study are discussed along with possible improvements for future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".