Return to Work During Perinatal Mourning: The Case for Organizational Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this exploratory, empirical study of qualitative nature is to shed light on return to work experience of employees during perinatal mourning. Several studies describe and examine the consequences of perinatal loss among parents, establishing that perinatal loss is different from other types of grief, although the intensity of the pain experienced is as strong. This study seeks to contribute to the field of human resources from a multidisciplinary perspective. While the issue of returning to work after experiencing a perinatal loss links human resources to other fields, current studies available on the subject exclusively tackle the issue from the point of view of psychology and health sciences. This study will therefore enable us to reduce the gap that separates these fields of study. At the moment, the literature in human resources does not focus on the specific issue of perinatal loss in a context of returning to work. In fact, to examine the issue, one must turn to studies concerning the return to work process after other kinds of personal problems. Literature reveals three categories of factors influencing return to work: social, organizational, and individual. Organizations often underestimate the profound impact of the grief experienced by parents experiencing perinatal loss. When returning to work after the loss of an unborn child or infant, parents are often still in the early stages of the “grieving process” and trying to adapt to this new reality. However, organizations rarely support parents when they return to work during this type of grief. This is why our study targets employee’s experience of return to work during perinatal mourning. In order to explore these experiences, three discussion groups were held in the province of Quebec with women who lost their unborn child. Content analysis enabled us to conclude that taking a leave of absence after the death of an unborn child or infant, although important, is insufficient in and of itself because adaptation to the loss is not yet complete when returning to work. The factor that appears to be more crucial to a successful return to work is the support provided by organizations through various practices, of which the most important are access to an employee assistance program, to outside help, and to appropriate working arrangements. Finally, this study brings important new insights on an issue often addressed exclusively by other fields and puts forth promising prospects for future studies seeking to broaden and improve the conclusions presented here.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".