The efficacy of bereavement interventions: Determining who benefits.

Abstract

In the last quarter of the twentieth century numerous intervention programs for bereaved persons were developed, ranging from mutual-help groups open for anyone suffering a loss to full-blown therapeutic programs for complicated or pathological forms of grief. Likewise, strategies have ranged from individual to group interventions. The basic idea behind offering help is to benefit the bereaved individual, to help him or her to deal with the emotional and practical problems following the loss of a loved one. If societal developments are taken as the criterion, it must be concluded that there has been uncritical acceptance of the assumption that help is beneficial. In the United States, Australia, and Europe social workers, psychologists, funeral organizations, hospitals, organizations of bereaved individuals, and various religious and humanistic organizations offer grief counseling and therapy. Undoubtedly they have done so with good intentions, but there is reason to doubt whether what they are trying to achieve is actually being achieved. A substantial number of grief intervention efficacy studies have resulted in disappointing, sometimes even negative, re-705

Couples at Risk Following the Death of Their Child: Predictors of Grief Versus Depression.

“…As Schut et al (2001) reported, selecting participants by screening for risk level raises the chances of the intervention leading to positive results. The risk factors in our study can help identify people at high risk.…”

Participant experiences of Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing vs. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for grief: similarities and differences

“…Whereas in other reviews (Allumbaugh & Hoyt, 1999; Schut, Stroebe, van den Bout, & Terheggen, 2001), consistently larger effect sizes and positive outcomes have been reported where participants were self-referred or referred by a general practitioner, when compared to preventative or outreach approaches. These studies suggest that a self-perception of struggling with grief and active treatment seeking results in a benefit from therapy.…”

The Fundamental Paradox in the Grief Literature: A Critical Reflection

“…However, research has demonstrated that grief interventions for those with "normal" grief show little to no effect, and in a high proportion of cases, the bereaved participants would have been better off without the intervention (e.g., Hansson & Stroebe, 2003;Jordan & Neimeyer, 2003;Schut, Stroebe, van den Bout, & Terheggen, 2001). Nevertheless, interventions appear more effective for those with "risk" variables and/or "complicated" grief reactions Jordan & Neimeyer 2003;Murray, Terry, Vance, Battistutta, & Connolly, 2000;Neimeyer, 2000b;Schut et al, 2001).…”