Prevalence and correlates of positive and negative psychological effects of bereavement due to COVID-19: A living systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p>Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with an increase in mortality rates globally. Given the high numbers of deaths and the potentially traumatic characteristics of COVID-19 deaths, it is expected that grief-related distress levels are higher in COVID-19 bereaved (compared to non-COVID-19 bereaved) people. This living systematic review (LSR) investigates the empirical evidence regarding this claim. More specifically, this LSR summarizes studies evaluating prevalence and correlates of positive and negative psychological effects of COVID-19 bereavement. This iteration synthesizes evidence up to July 2022. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PsychInfo, Web of Science, and Medline by two independent reviewers. Eligible studies included quantitative peer-reviewed articles reporting on positive and/or negative psychological outcomes, using validated measures, in COVID-19 bereaved adults. The primary outcome was prolonged grief symptoms (PG). Results: Searches identified 9871 articles, whereof 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies included prevalence rates and/or symptom-levels of psychological outcomes after COVID-19 losses. Prevalence rates of psychological outcomes were primarily reported in terms of (acute) PG, pandemic grief, depression, anxiety, and functional impairment, and varied widely between studies (e.g., ranged between 29% and 49% for acute PG). No studies reported on prevalence rates of positive psychological outcomes. Closer kinship to the deceased, death unexpectedness, and COVID-19 stressors were identified as correlates of increased psychological symptoms. Conclusions: Due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies, knowledge about psychological effects of COVID-19 bereavement is limited. This LSR offers a regular synthesis of up-to-date research evidence to guide clinicians, policy makers, public health professionals, and future research on the psychological effects of COVID-19 bereavement.</ns4:p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".