Cited by 35Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Time elapsed since loss or grief persistency? Prevalence and predictors of ICD-11 prolonged grief disorder using different applications of the duration criterion

Lundorff, Marie, Johannsen, Maja, O'Connor, Maja·2021·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Prolonged grief disorder (PGD), included in the ICD-11, encompasses a six-month duration criterion, but whether this covers 'time since loss' or 'grief persistency' is unclear. The study estimated prevalence and predictors of probable ICD-11 PGD using different applications of the duration criterion.Methods A register-sampled cohort of bereaved spouses completed self-report questionnaires at two (T1, N=847), six (T2, N=777), and eleven months (T3, N=753) post-loss. The duration criterion was operationalized as single-point PGD (meeting criteria minimally six months post-loss; T2 or T3) and dual-point PGD (meeting criteria at two assessments separated by months; T1+T2 or T2+T3).Results Single-point PGD prevalence rates (~15-20%) were significantly higher than dual-point prevalence rates (~10%). While single assessments of PGD varied between T2 and T3, the dual-point prevalence rates did not significantly differ. Early probable grief caseness emerged as the strongest predictor for later PGD.Limitations Without a structured clinical interview, only probable cases of PGD were identified. Caseness relied on a diagnostic algorithm, created by mapping items from different self-report questionnaires. Time frames between assessments did not cover an entire six-month period.Conclusions Momentarily assessed, six-month PGD symptomatology may represent a fluctuating, but remitting grief process for some individuals. Further research could test whether multiple diagnostic indicators during the first year of bereavement improve the identification of genuinely prolonged grief reactions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2020.09.116

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lundorff, M., Johannsen, M., & O'Connor, M.
Affiliations
Aarhus University (DK)
Corresponding author
Lundorff, Marie
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
279
Pages
89-97
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3089643208
Cited by
35
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Aarhus Universitets Forskningsfond (AUFF - E - 2015 - FLS - 8 - 63)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
prolonged grief disorder, ICD-11, bereavement, time since loss, prevalence, predictive factors, bereaved spouses, diagnostic algorithm, self-report questionnaire
MeSH terms
Bereavement, Grief, Humans, Prevalence, Spouses, International Classification of Diseases

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