Engagement in meaningful activities post suicide loss: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, more than 720,000 people die by suicide each year, leaving grieving individuals in their wake. Research indicates that individuals who lose a loved one to suicide face heightened risks for negative health outcomes. Recent studies show that taking part in meaningful activities can help protect health emphasizing the importance of exploring engagement in meaningful activities of everyday living among those bereaved. Currently, there has not been a review of the bereavement literature exploring the nature of, and extent to which, meaningful activities of everyday living are discussed. OBJECTIVE: To explore the nature of, and extent to which the peer-reviewed, suicide bereavement literature addresses engagement in meaningful activities of everyday living. METHODS: A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute's framework was completed to summarize and map the literature. Four electronic databases were searched for two concepts: suicide and bereavement. Studies were screened using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers completed title and abstract, and full text screening for each article. All conflicts were resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. Data were charted, summarized and results were reported using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. RESULTS: 12372 studies were identified; 112 studies met inclusion criteria. Studies used qualitative (n = 90), quantitative (n = 10) and mixed (n = 12) methods. Findings indicate that the suicide bereavement literature discusses engagement in meaningful activities of everyday living using three main components: activities of everyday living, the engagement status of activities, and the meaning associated with activities. DISCUSSION: While references to meaningful activities of everyday living appear in the bereavement literature, they typically are discussed within the background rather than central research aims. There is a need to bring this discussion to the forefront and view engagement in meaningful activities of everyday living as an important aspect of suicide bereavement.
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 | 0.020 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".