“It Was the Only Thing I Could Hold Onto, But…”: Receiving a Letter of Condolence After Loss of a Loved One in the ICU: A Qualitative Study of Bereaved Relatives’ Experience*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Family members of patients who die in the ICU often remain with unanswered questions and suffer from lack of closure. A letter of condolence may help bereaved relatives, but little is known about their experience of receiving such a letter. The objective of the study was to understand bereaved family members' experience of receiving a letter of condolence. DESIGN: Qualitative study using interviews with bereaved family members who received a letter of condolence and letters written by these family members to the ICU team. This study was designed to provide insight into the results of a larger randomized, controlled, multicenter study. SETTING: Twenty-two ICUs in France. SUBJECTS: Family members who lost a loved one in the ICU and who received a letter of condolence. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thematic analysis was used and was based on 52 interviews and 26 letters. Six themes emerged: 1) a feeling of support, 2) humanization of the medical system, 3) an opportunity for reflection, 4) an opportunity to describe their loved one, 5) continuity and closure, and 6) doubts and ambivalence. Possible difficulties emerged, notably the re-experience of the trauma, highlighting the absence of further support. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the benefits of receiving a letter of condolence; mainly, it humanizes the medical institution (feeling of support, confirmation of the role played by the relative, supplemental information). However, this study also shows a common ambivalence about the letter of condolence's benefit. Healthcare workers must strive to adapt bereavement follow-up to each individual situation.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".