Caring for Parents After the Death of a Child
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the health outcomes of bereaved parents and identify practical strategies for critical care providers as they support and provide anticipatory guidance to bereaved parents. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and PsycInfo databases with search terms of bereavement, grief, with parent and pediatric or child complimented by personal experience and knowledge. STUDY SELECTION: We sought studies describing parental health outcomes and needs of bereaved parents after the death of their child. DATA SYNTHESIS: A narrative literature review was performed and framed from the perspective of PICU providers who care for bereaved parents. We aimed to describe experiences of grief and short- and long-term consequences and approaches to the care of parents and families in the immediate period and in the months after the death of a child. CONCLUSIONS: The death of a child is a traumatic experience that can put parents at risk for adverse mental and physical health during bereavement. Health professionals working in PICUs can benefit from knowing these risks to best support bereaved parents, both during their child's hospitalization and in the early postdeath period. The bereavement experience of parents is an adaptive process, and ongoing professional support may be required for vulnerable families. After the child's hospitalization and death, a bereavement follow-up meeting with PICU physician(s) and staff may allow parents to gain additional information, emotional support, and provide an opportunity for parents to give feedback on their experiences.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".