CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 81Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

The integrated process model of loss and grief: An interprofessional understanding

Open access
Guldin, Mai-Britt, Leget, Carlo·2024·Death Studies
DOI 10.1080/07481187.2023.2272960
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite the vast developments in research on loss and grief, dominant grief models fall short in reflecting the comprehensive issues grieving persons are facing. Three causes seem to be at play: grief is usually understood to be connected to death and other types of loss are under-researched; the majority of research is done from the field of psychology and on pathological forms of grief, hardly integrating research from other disciplines; and the existential suffering related to grief is not recognized or insufficiently integrated in the dominant models. In this paper, we propose an integrated process model (IPM) of loss and grief, distinguishing five dimensions of grief: physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and spiritual. The integrated process model integrates therapies, tools, and models within different scientific theories and paradigms to connect disciplines and professions. The comprehensive and existential understanding of loss and grief has relevance for research, clinical settings and community support.

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 · 10.1080/07481187.2023.2272960

Cites

97 of 97 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?

  • Parent reports of their grief experiences align with many grief theories, such as the integrated process model, which also describe grief as multifaceted, interconnected, and individualized.

    “Parent reports of their grief experiences align with many grief theories, such as the integrated process model, which also describe grief as multifaceted, interconnected, and individualized (38).”

    From Parent-to-parent advice before the birth of a stillborn baby (2025) · cites this paper as [38]

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

8 of the 105 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Cholbi, M. (2021). Grief. A philosophical guide. Princeton University Press.
  2. Cooper, M. (2003). Existential Therapies. (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.
  3. Doka, K. J. (2023). Bereavement: A sociological perspective. In E. M. Steffen, E. Milman, R.A. Neimeyer (Eds.) The handbook of grieftherapies. (pp. 189-198). SAGE.
  4. Frankl, V. (2006). Man's search for meaning. Beacon Press.
  5. Guldin, M. B. (2019). Tab og sorg. En gundbog for professio- nelle [Loss and grief. A handbook for professionals.]. (2nd ed.). Hans Reitzels Forlag.
  6. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and cop- ing. Springer.
  7. Neimeyer, R. A. (2023). Grief therapy as a quest for mean- ing. In E.M. Steffen, E. Milman, R.A. Neimeyer (Eds.), The handbook of grief therapies. (pp. 53-68). Sage.
  8. Neimeyer, R. A., Breen, L. J., & Milman, E. (2023). The effectiveness of grief therapy: A meta-analytic perspective. In E.M. Steffen, E. Milman, R.A. Neimeyer (Eds.), The Handbook of grief therapies. (pp. 29-40). Sage.
  9. Nolan, S., Saltmarsh, P., & Leget, C. (2011). Spiritual care in palliative care: working towards and EAPC task force. EJPC, 18(2), 86-89.
  10. Steffen, E. M. (2023). Grief therapies for our times: A plur- alistic proposition. In E.M. Steffen, E. Milman, R.A. Neimeyer (Eds.), The handbook of grief therapies. (pp. 3- 12). Sage.
  11. Van Deurzen. (2023). Existential Therapy for Grief. In E.M. Steffen, E. Milman, R.A. Neimeyer (Eds.), The Handbook of grief therapies. (pp. 69-77). Sage.
  12. van Deurzen, E., & Adams, M. (2016). Skills in existential counselling and psychotherapy. (2nd ed.).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Guldin, M.-B., & Leget, C.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • University of Humanistic Studies (NL)
Corresponding author
Guldin, Mai-Britt
ORCID
Venue
Death Studies
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-10-26
Volume
48
Issue
7
Pages
738-752
ISSN
  • 0748-1187 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-7683
DOI
10.1080/07481187.2023.2272960
OpenAlex
W4387951368
Cited by
70
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 9
FWCI
20.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Death Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
grief, loss, integrated process model, existential suffering, interprofessional understanding, bereavement, pathological grief, interdisciplinary integration
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Attitude to Death, Grief, Humans, Models, Psychological

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