A Scoping Review of Evidence-Based Grief Interventions for Parentally Bereaved Children: Comparing Individual, Group, and Family Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review examines and compares the effectiveness of different intervention formats for parentally bereaved children by focusing on three therapeutic formats: individual, group, and family-based approaches. Using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we analyzed ten peer-reviewed quantitative studies published between 2010 and 2022. This study emphasizes formal interventions with measurable outcomes, excluding creative or symbolic approaches such as art and ritual-based therapies. This review highlights that individual interventions, particularly cognitive-behavioural techniques, significantly reduce critical deficits such as prolonged grief disorder and PTSD symptoms. Group approaches foster social connection and emotional regulation, while family interventions emphasize improved family communication and caregiver support. Notable limitations include small sample sizes, heterogeneity in program structure, and reliance on self-reported outcomes. Future research should explore diverse grief experiences, longer-term impacts, and cultural considerations. This review provides insights into tailoring interventions to the unique needs of bereaved children, aiding practitioners in selecting evidence-based approaches.
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 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".