<scp>ICD</scp>‐11 prolonged grief disorder: Prevalence, predictors, and co‐occurrence in a large representative sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Classification of Diseases has recently defined Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD) with symptoms such as longing, worry, and intense emotional pain that exceed sociocultural norms more than 6 months after the loss. This study aims to (a) estimate the prevalence of this new diagnostic category, (b) identify its sociodemographic and loss-related predictors, and (c) assess the co-occurrence of PGD with other psychological disorders and substance abuse. A large representative sample of Spanish adults (N = 1498) participated. Several multivariate binary logistic regression and multivariate logistic regression models were used. Results showed a 9.95% prevalence in the total sample. Catholic beliefs were a positive predictor, while higher income and more time since loss significantly decreased the odds of PGD. PGD significantly increased the likelihood of anxiety, depression, somatisation, post-traumatic stress disorder, loneliness and substance use. Our study contributes to assessing the multicultural PGD validity, as our results from a large representative sample are comparable to those in other countries with the PGDS. Our findings have direct implications for the assessment and treatment of bereavement, identifying for practitioners variables that make individuals more vulnerable to PGD. Results highlighted the high co-occurrence of PGD with other psychological illnesses and increased drug use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".