Cited by 13Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning

Priorities for the development and evaluation of support after suicide bereavement in the UK: Results of a discussion group

Open access
Pitman, Alexandra, Khrisna Putri, Adelia, Kennedy, Nina, De Souza, Tanisha, King, Michael, Osborn, David·2016·Bereavement Care

Abstract

We present the results of a group discussion conducted to identify research priorities among people bereaved by suicide regarding support needs. The authors’ research team had recently published evidence from a UK-wide sample of young bereaved adults showing that those bereaved by suicide had a greater probability of suicide attempt than those bereaved by other causes of sudden death. For this study, ten UK-based adults bereaved by the suicide of a partner or family member were invited to join a group discussion to identify and prioritise an intervention to evaluate. These priorities were discussed in the context of unmet needs for support, identifying a need to develop and evaluate: immediate outreach after suicide; diversification and development of peer support services; and individual psychological support for those who feel suicidal. The group also suggested five key outcome measures: isolation; stigma; psychological health; day-to-day social functioning; and functioning in a work or caregiver role. The views presented in this discussion are a valuable contribution to the design of research that will inform national public health policy and the suicide prevention strategy for England.

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 · 10.1080/02682621.2016.1254457

Cites

9 of 9 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pitman, A., Khrisna Putri, A., Kennedy, N., De Souza, T., King, M., & Osborn, D.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • MSc student UCL Division of Psychiatry
  • Chair, Suicide Bereaved Network
Corresponding author
Pitman, Alexandra
Venue
Bereavement Care
Published
2016-09
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
109-116
ISSN
  • 0268-2621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-8279
OpenAlex
W2564586160
Cited by
13
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bereavement Care (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/L501487/1)
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, bereaved adults, support needs, research priorities, peer support services, psychological support, suicide attempts, stigma, social isolation, outcome measures, suicide prevention policy, public health policy

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