Cited by 47Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning

A systematic mapping of suicide bereavement and postvention research and a proposed strategic research agenda

Maple, Myfanwy, Pearce, Tania, Sanford, Rebecca, Cerel, Julie, Castelli Dransart, Dolores Angela, Andriessen, Karl·2018·Crisis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Suicide may have disruptive and/or devastating effects on family, friends, and the broader community. Of late, increased interest from suicide researchers has given rise to an upsurge in research productivity addressing suicide bereavement and postvention. At this critical juncture, the establishment of an agenda will help guide the direction of future scholarly research in this field. AIMS: To conduct an exhaustive systematic mapping review and bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed suicide bereavement and postvention research published over the past 50 years. METHOD: A comprehensive and strategic search of electronic databases and web-based search engines for original research studies was conducted resulting in the identification of 443 articles. RESULTS: Since 1965, the global research activities in the field of suicide bereavement and postvention is approximately 8.86 papers per year. There remains a lack of evaluation studies on the effects of interventions/programs with the majority of papers being explanatory in nature. Several areas of study within this field remain neglected. LIMITATIONS: While the search strategy was rigorous, potential limitations exist due to nonstandardized nomenclature and English language only inclusion, which inherently favors research from high-income countries. CONCLUSION: Suggested topics for a research agenda are proposed from the current limitations in the field.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/0227-5910/a000498

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Most research has focused on the characteristics of suicide bereavement rather than on the effectiveness of interventions.

    “Still, most research has been focused on the characteristics of suicide bereavement rather than on effectiveness of interventions (Andriessen, 2014; Andriessen et al., 2017d; Maple et al., 2018).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maple, M., Pearce, T., Sanford, R., Cerel, J., Castelli Dransart, D. A., & Andriessen, K.
Affiliations
  • University of New England (AU)
  • Thompson Rivers University (CA)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • School of Social Work Fribourg, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Art Western Switzerland, Fribourg, Switzerland
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Venue
Crisis
Published
2018-07
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
275-282
ISSN
  • 0227-5910 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-2396
OpenAlex
W2776482640
Cited by
47
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Crisis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EPubDev Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Keywords
suicide bereavement, suicide postvention, research agenda, bibliometric analysis, suicide intervention, research gaps
MeSH terms
Bereavement, Humans, Research, Suicide, Bibliometrics

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