What Exactly Is “Complicated” Grief? A Scoping Research Literature Review to Understand Its Risk Factors and Prevalence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most people will experience bereavement grief, but some suffer from persistent or prolonged (PoP) grief, grief that used to be identified as "complicated" before recent DSM-5 and ICD-11 definitional developments. In 2020, a scoping literature review was undertaken to identify and consolidate contemporary evidence from research articles published in 2018 or 2019 in paper-based and open access peer-review journals on: (a) the incidence or prevalence of PoP grief, and (b) who develops it or is diagnosed as suffering from it, and correspondingly what causative factors or predictors are associated with PoP grief. All of the 11 identified research articles reported an incidence or prevalence rate, with these varying greatly, but with a much higher rate now that a 6-month post-death measurement timeframe is used. The predictors or factors among people who were identified as having PoP grief also varied considerably, although sudden and unexpected deaths were often implicated.
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 | 0.015 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".