Bereavement interventions for families in the ICU: a scoping review informed by a core outcome set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Families confronting the death of a loved one in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at greater risk of experiencing complicated grief than families bereaved in other circumstances. The primary objective of this scoping review was to identify interventions that have been explored in the literature for supporting ICU bereaved families. Secondary objectives were to map the findings to a core outcome set (COS) developed to measure bereavement interventions for adults, and to identify existing knowledge gaps, with particular attention to considerations of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Methods We searched five electronic databases: Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, and MEDLINE. Primary research articles that described bereavement program(s) and/or support(s) for bereaved loved ones in the setting of an adult ICU were included. We extracted data on study aims, methods, setting, patient and bereaved loved one demographics, design, analysis, and results. Four reviewers independently screened references and performed data extraction. Findings We identified 11 bereavement interventions, including memorial services, condolence letters/sympathy cards, mementos, ICU diaries completed by staff or family, storytelling interventions, personalized/individual final wishes, information booklets/referrals to resources, meetings with ICU professionals, follow up telephone calls, training for staff, and other specific interventions. Most studies (35 out of 39) reported outcomes that aligned with a previously developed COS. Only three studies addressed cultural diversity in the development or implementation of bereavement interventions. Conclusions This scoping review summarizes the range of bereavement interventions described in the literature and highlights key areas for future development, including cultural inclusivity in the development and implementation of interventions, and the use of standardized outcomes for evaluation. Registration The protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ue7t9 ).
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 | 0.047 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".