Grief counselling efficacy

What have we learned

Datos Bibliográficos

ID20159522
AutoresDale G Larson (0000-0001-6562-1498, Santa Clara University), William T Hoyt (0000-0003-4324-5676, University of Wisconsin–Madison)
Año2009
Volumen28
Número3
Páginas14-19
Fecha de publicación2009-12-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaBereavement Care (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0268-2621 • E-ISSN: 1944-8279
EditorialCruse Bereavement Care (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/02682620903355424
OpenAlexW1517286950
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas12
Referencias citadas12

The growing debate within the bereavement field about the efficacy of grief counselling offers two contrasting viewpoints. At one extreme is Neimeyer's claim that ‘such interventions are typically ineffective, and perhaps even deleterious, at least for persons experiencing a normal bereavement’. At the other is the more cautiously optimistic position of Larson and Hoyt, who argue that studies of grief counselling as typically practised demonstrate levels of effectiveness similar to those found for traditional psychotherapy, and that there is no empirical evidence to support claims of harmful effects. This article summarises the key findings and claims in this debate, explores factors that might have contributed to an uncritical acceptance of the claim that grief counselling is harmful, and recapitulates the authors’ view that the empirical data on outcomes from grief counselling give cause for cautious optimism

Complicated grief · Disenfranchised grief · Grief · Optimism · Psychiatry · Psychological intervention · Psychotherapist · Viewpoints · Clinical Psychology · Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health · Homelessness and Social Issues · Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues · Psychology