Complicated Grief
A Conceptual Analysis of the Field
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13629804 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Margaret S Stroebe (0000-0002-8468-3317, University of Utrecht, Netherlands, corresponding author), Henk Schut (0000-0001-8744-4322, University of Utrecht, Netherlands) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 52 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 53-70 |
| Publication date | 2006-02-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0030-2228 • E-ISSN: 1541-3764 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.2190/d1nq-bw4w-d2hp-t7kw |
| OpenAlex | W2152719404 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 13 |
| References cited | 33 |
A great deal of research, notably by Prigerson and colleagues (e.g., Prigerson & Jacobs, 2001; see Prigerson & Maciejewski, this issue) and Horowitz and colleagues (e.g., Horowitz, this issue; Horowitz, Bonanno, & Holen, 1993), has recently been conducted with the purpose of establishing criteria for the designation of Complicated Grief (CG) as a mental disorder for inclusion in DSM-V. Some dissenting voices have been heard from teams of researchers adopting different approaches and/or using different criteria and diagnostic categorizations. We argue the need for a conceptual framework as a starting point for understanding the different positions on this CG—DSM controversy. This analysis is used as a tool to evaluate the questions posed by the Editor of this Special Issue, Colin Murray Parkes: (1) Should Complicated Grief be regarded as a psychiatric disorder? (2) Does the syndrome described by Prigerson and colleagues meet the required scientific criteria? Discrepancies emerge between scholars in the ways that they have conceptualized and assessed complicated grief and associated disorders: Examination of the positions of researchers within the framework reveals five systematically different approaches. We argue that potential criteria and diagnostic categorization systems emerging from the different perspectives need to be considered. General implications of DSM-V (non)inclusion are summarized
Categorization · Complicated grief · Dissenting opinion · Epistemology · Field (mathematics · Grief · Inclusion (mineral · Political science · Psychoanalysis · Psychotherapist · Sociology · Family Caregiving in Mental Illness · Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health · Law · Migration, Health and Trauma · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology
Complicated grief and related bereavement issues for DSM-5
The Fundamental Paradox in the Grief Literature
Complicated Grief in the South African Context
Identifying levels of vulnerability in grief using the Adult Attitude to Grief scale
The Two-Track Model of Bereavement Questionnaire (TTBQ)
Continuing Bonds, Risk Factors for Complicated Grief, and Adjustment to Bereavement
Acts of Resistance
Post-traumatic growth and bereavement
Complicated Bereavement
When Death Hits You in Your Face, You Have to Listen”
Considerations in Conceptualizing Complicated Grief
Creative Responses to a Drug- or Alcohol-Related Death
Mental Health Risks in the Local Workforce Engaged in Disaster Relief and Reconstruction
The Anatomy of Bereavement
Handbook of Bereavement
Handbook of bereavement research
Bereavement and Health
Traumatic grief as a distinct disorder
Prospective Patterns of Resilience and Maladjustment During Widowhood.
Quantitative or qualitative? Measurement issues in the study of grief.
The Impact of Event Scale
Pathological grief
Impact of Event Scale
What is Complicated Grief? A Social Constructionist Perspective
The Two-Track Model of Bereavement
The development of anxiety
| Unique citing works | 13 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,65 |
| Citation span | 2006 - 2023 (18) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 13 |