Cited by 53Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Predicting grief intensity after recent perinatal loss

Hutti, Marianne H., Myers, John, Hall, Lynne A., Polivka, Barbara J., White, Susan, Hill, Janice, Kloenne, Elizabeth, Hayden, Jaclyn +1 more·2017·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

Objective The Perinatal Grief Intensity Scale (PGIS) was developed for clinical use to identify and predict intense grief and need for follow-up after perinatal loss. This study evaluates the validity of the PGIS via its ability to predict future intense grief based on a PGIS score obtained early after a loss.Methods A prospective observational study was conducted with 103 international, English-speaking women recruited at hospital discharge or via the internet who experienced a miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death within the previous 8weeks. Survey data were collected at baseline using the PGIS and the Perinatal Grief Scale (PGS). Follow-up data on the PGS were obtained 3months later. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis.Results Cronbach's alphas were ≥0.70 for both instruments. PGIS factor analysis yielded three factors as predicted, explaining 57.7% of the variance. The optimal cutoff identified for the PGIS was 3.535. No difference was found when the ability of the PGIS to identify intense grief was compared to the PGS (p=0.754). The PGIS was not inferior to the PGS (AUC=0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.88, p<0.001) in predicting intense grief at the follow-up. A PGIS score≥3.53 at baseline was associated with increased grief intensity at Time 2 (PGS: OR=1.97, 95% CI 1.59-2.34, p<0.001).Conclusions The PGIS is comparable to the PGS, has a lower response burden, and can reliably and validly predict women who may experience future intense grief associated with perinatal loss.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.07.016

Cites

39 of 39 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hutti, M. H., Myers, J., Hall, L. A., Polivka, B. J., White, S., Hill, J., Kloenne, E., Hayden, J., & Grisanti, M. M.
Affiliations
University of Louisville (US)
Corresponding author
Hutti, Marianne H.
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
101
Pages
128-134
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2741372171
Cited by
53
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
perinatal loss, grief intensity, Perinatal Grief Scale, miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death, scale validity, factor structure, cut-off values
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Adult, Female, Grief, Humans, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Stillbirth, Perinatal Death

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