B-SURE (Bereavement Support Research): The Differential Experiences of Peer and Professional Support in Grief
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract\nThe project aimed to investigate the differential experiences of those who have received peer or professional support for grief and bereavement. Although much is known with regards to the perceived impacts of peer and professional support in general, there is little research surrounding these support types in the context of grief and bereavement, the potential for these support types to be complementary, and how the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the experiences of those receiving these forms of support. The main goal of this project was to address a significant gap in the literature by investigating the following questions: 1) to explore bereaved individuals’ experiences with seeking and/or receiving peer and professional support for their grief, and whether these support types can be complementary, as well as 2) to examine bereaved individuals experiences with online peer or professional support services during the COVID-19 pandemic and afterwards (including its more recent resolution, etc.). The intention of this study was to explore the differential experiences associated with both types of support, but not to determine if one is better than or as good as the other. Grounded in social support theory and guided by a constructivist paradigm, this research implemented a qualitative research design involving semi-structured interviews with 25 participants located in Midwestern Ontario. In total, 10 participants received professional support, seven received peer support, and eight received both forms of support. Interview questions addressed subjects pertaining to participant experience with support provided virtually, participant perception of the training of their support provider, and participant perception of how their support may have contributed to their grief journey. The project was conducted in collaboration with a community partner (Bereaved Families of Ontario – Midwestern Region). Methods of analysis included a hybrid of both inductive and deductive thematic analysis approaches. Results indicated that in both peer and professional support, all participants in this research feel as though their supporter had been adequately trained to provide grief support, except for some facilitators in peer support not holding space for the participants to speak. Additionally, participants highlighted that both support services were able to provide informational support, a reduction of feelings of isolation, and an increased sense of connection and normalization of their grief experience. Participants also expressed that the one-to-one format and the use of specialized therapeutic techniques were helpful components of professional support. Further, participants explained that in peer support, a helpful component of this support type was the shared lived experiences among those attending the peer group. Participants also highlighted many advantages and disadvantages of virtual support, such as the advantage of ability to receive support at home and the disadvantage of the lack of an in-person environment to foster additional bonding experiences with other participants in peer support. Overall, these findings suggest that peer and professional support within the context of grief are complementary support services and the way in which these services can be utilized together should be further explored. As many participants highlighted the challenges they experienced in finding grief support, the hope is that the bereaved community can utilize the results of this research to learn about the grief support options that are available and assist them in making an informed decision with regards to what type of support may be most beneficial to them.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".