Work-related grief and bereavement experiences of social and community service workers working with people experiencing social disadvantage: a rapid scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While an extensive body of research in palliative care exists on the experiences of grief and bereavement among family caregivers, much of this research is based on normative assumptions of who family caregivers are - housed, financially stable, and with extended family and/or friends to draw on for support. Research shows that in contexts of social disadvantage(e.g., homelessness and poverty, mental health and substance use concerns, racism and discrimination), social and community workers can become 'defacto' family and provide caregiving support at the end of life. Yet, there is little known about the grief and bereavement experiences of this worker group. METHODS: This study aimed to review the available literature on the experiences of grief and bereavement among workers working with people experiencing social disadvantage. A rapid scoping review was conducted following the JBI scoping review methodology. Six sources (Medline, CINAHL, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Work Abstracts) were searched to identify relevant articles published until June 30th, 2023. From the systematic search and screening process, 9 studies met the eligibility criteria and were selected for the analysis. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in this review that employed various qualitative approaches. Three main themes emerged from the narrative synthesis and thematic analysis: (1) Working in contexts of inequities, (2) Distress and its attributing factors, (3) Support needs and strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Caring for socially disadvantaged individuals poses unique challenges, compounded by repeated loss, premature deaths, and societal stigma. Social and community service workers lack formal recognition for their pivotal palliative care role, necessitating organizational support, palliative education, and collective responses to address their unmet grief and bereavement needs. Further research is essential.
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 | 0.019 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".