MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312095450 · doi:10.1177/00302228221144925

Factors Associated With Higher Levels of Grief and Support Needs Among People Bereaved During the Pandemic: Results from a National Online Survey

2022· article· en· W4312095450 on OpenAlexaff
Lucy Selman, D. J. J. Farnell, Mirella Longo, Silvia Goss, Anna Torrens‐Burton, Kathy Seddon, Catriona R Mayland, Linda Machin, Anthony Byrne, Emily Harrop

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research Centre
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilMarie Curie
KeywordsLonelinessGriefVulnerability (computing)Social supportComplicated griefPandemicDisenfranchised griefPsychologySocial isolationMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Clinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We identified factors associated with higher levels of grief and support needs among 711 people bereaved during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK (deaths 16 March 2020-2 January 2021). An online survey assessed grief using the Adult Attitude to Grief (AAG) scale, which calculates an overall index of vulnerability (IOV) (range 0–36), and practical and emotional support needs in 13 domains. Participants’ mean age was 49.5 (SD 12.9); 628 (88.6%) female. Mean age of deceased 72.2 (SD 16.1). 311 (43.8%) deaths were from confirmed/suspected COVID-19. High overall levels of grief and support needs were observed; 28.2% exhibited severe vulnerability (index of vulnerability ≥24). Grief and support needs were higher for close relationships with the deceased (vs. more distant) and reported social isolation and loneliness ( p < 0.001), and lower when age of deceased was above 40–50. Other associated factors were place of death and health professional support post-death ( p < 0.05).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207