The Clinical Utility of Spirituality and Religion in Meaning-Making Theory for Suicide Loss Survivors: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the case of violent/traumatic loss due to a completed suicide, there can be an overwhelming and complicated grief reaction followed by a spiritual need for the process of sense making and finding meaning. Some emerging literature on suicide loss survivors (SLSs) denotes that suicide loss is more similar to other forms of bereavement but is uniquely characterized by high levels of shame, guilt, self-blame, and stigma. This article examines themes within the current literature on the bereavement process, meaning-making theory, religion, and spirituality. The aim of this scoping review was to consider the question concerning the clinical utility of accompanying meaning-making interventions with a spiritually informed approach for SLS. The research was conducted through a scoping review. Records were identified through database searches of ProQuest (N = 93); OMNI (N = 184); and EBSCO (N = 63). Through a process involving identification, screening, and eligibility guided by inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 25 (N = 25) articles were used. These articles were analyzed in-depth for commonalities. Grief experiences, religious and spiritual experiences and meaning-making were three themes that emerged from the literature. In conclusion, this review elevates the importance of an integrated clinical counselling approach that encourages meaning-making within the context of spirituality to promote positive psychotherapy outcomes and growth for SLSs.
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 | 0.016 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".