Cited by 281Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

The prevalence and characteristics of complicated grief in older adults

Open access
Newson, Rachel S., Boelen, Paul A., Hek, Karin, Hofman, Albert, Tiemeier, Henning·2011·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Complicated grief is a prolongation of the normal grieving process with distinct characteristics. It impairs mental and physical health and can potentially greatly impact the quality of life of sufferers and their families. The prevalence and characteristics of complicated grief in the general population are currently unclear. The aims of the present study were therefore to evaluate the prevalence of complicated grief in a population-based cohort, examine the overlap between anxiety and depression and identify common bereavement-related and socio-demographic characteristics.Methods Based within the Rotterdam Study, 5741 older adults were evaluated. Complicated grief was assessed with a 17-item Inventory of Complicated Grief.Results Prevalence within the general population was 4.8%. Current grief was reported by 1089 participants, and of these 277 (25.4%) were diagnosed with complicated grief. Inflated anxiety and depression rates were documented in people with complicated grief, but the vast majority remained free from co-morbidity. Time since bereavement and relationship to deceased, particularly when the source was a spouse or child, were predictive of complicated grief. People with complicated grief were older, had a lower level of education, and more cognitive impairment.Conclusions The prevalence of complicated grief in older adults in the general population was noteworthy. Several factors were predictive of complicated grief and it was demonstrated as a separate condition to anxiety and depression. These findings highlight the need for prevention, diagnosis and treatment options for older adults with complicated grief and for recognition of complicated grief as a distinct diagnosis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2011.02.021

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The ICG was used in a study measuring PGD at an average of 6.7 months post-loss with a prevalence of 25.4% and in a study at 26 months post-loss with a prevalence of 13.9%.

    “For example, the ICG was used both in a study measuring PGD at an average of 6.7 months post-loss (Newson et al., 2011) resulting in a prevalence of 25.4% and in a study at 26 months post-loss (Li and Prigerson, 2016) showing a prevalence of PGD of 13.9%.”

    From Prevalence of prolonged grief disorder in adult bereavement: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Newson et al., 2011

    Section 4.2 reports that 25.4% of participants currently experiencing grief had complicated grief, measured using the ICG. Section 4.5 gives a mean time since bereavement of 6.73 for those diagnosed with complicated grief, but does not identify that figure as months or as the study-wide average. The 26-month, 13.9% finding is attributed to a different source and is not judged here. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bonanno, G.A., Neria, Y., et al., 2007. Is there more to complicated grief than depression and PTSD? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 116, 342-351.
  2. Prigerson, H.G., Shear, M.K., et al., 1999. Consensus criteria for traumatic grief. British Journal of Psychiatry 174, 67-73.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newson, R. S., Boelen, P. A., Hek, K., Hofman, A., & Tiemeier, H.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Tiemeier, Henning
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-07
Volume
132
Issue
1-2
Pages
231-238
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005092613
Cited by
281
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
FWCI
17.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
complicated grief, bereavement, older adults, prevalence, anxiety, depression, comorbidities, cognitive impairment, educational attainment, Inventory of Complicated Grief, Rotterdam Study
MeSH terms
Adjustment Disorders, Age Factors, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Female, Grief, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Personality Assessment, Psychometrics, Socioeconomic Factors, Cohort Studies, Comorbidity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review