MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390902988 · doi:10.1097/njh.0000000000001016

A Review of Parental Bereavement Interventions

2024· review· en· W4390902988 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Dias, Abigail Floyd, Rhea Ramkumar, Savannah Horvick, Amanda Haberstroh, Verna L. Hendricks‐Ferguson, Tracy Fasolino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsSNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionGriefMental healthPsychologyMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The untimely death of a child is an incredibly traumatic experience for parents and their loved ones. It uproots every aspect of their life, leading the bereaved parents to be far more likely to have poorer physical and mental health outcomes. This traumatic form of bereavement should have comprehensive grief-focused, high-quality interventions available for parents and extended family members. The purpose of this rapid review was to explore and describe the bereavement interventions available for parents and family that have been published within the past 5 years. Records identified 123 full-text articles that were reviewed, and 14 of those were included for data extraction and synthesis, using Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group with the addition of keyword searches. The 14 articles were analyzed by evaluating description of bereaved parents, accessibility of interventions, who delivered interventions, and the type and delivery time of interventions. Four types of interventions were identified, including Web-based, community-based, hospital-based, and psychotherapy interventions. This rapid review has implications for clinical practice, research, and health care policy that can increase the availability of support and quality of interventions for bereaved parents and family members.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospice and Palliative NursingSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207