Cited by 12Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

The meaning in loss protocol: A clinical trial of online grief therapy

Open access
Batista, João, Alves, Daniela, Pires, Nuno, Silva, Joana R., Mendes, Inês, Magalhães, Carina, Rosa, Catarina, Oliveira, João Tiago +2 more·2025·Death Studies

Abstract

For a minority of the bereaved, the loss of a significant other can trigger an overwhelming emotional reaction and impaired functioning across life domains, known as prolonged grief disorder (PGD). Hence, ongoing efforts have been made to refine existing treatments to increase their efficacy and to accommodate the idiosyncrasies of grief reactions. This study presents the results of an open clinical trial of the feasibility and effectiveness of the Meaning in Loss (MIL) protocol in an online format. The brief intervention of 12 to 16 sessions combines constructivist and narrative strategies to explore and work through impediments to meaning reconstruction in loss. The sample included 25 participants diagnosed with PGD who were treated by six therapists. Baseline and post-therapy comparisons showed a significant improvement in all clinical measures (grief symptomatology, depression and general distress) and an increase of meaning making regarding the loss. Meaning making was found to be a prospective mediator of symptomatic improvement in grief across the course of therapy. These findings suggest the effectiveness of the MIL protocol in decreasing grief specific and associated symptomatology and argue for the relevance of further controlled evaluations of its efficacy. Moreover, results confirm previous findings that meaning making is a relevant factor in the evolution of grief reactions, including in the context of psychotherapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07481187.2024.2370633

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 74 · Cited by 12

Authors
Batista, J., Alves, D., Pires, N., Silva, J. R., Mendes, I., Magalhães, C., Rosa, C., Oliveira, J. T., Gonçalves, M. M., & Neimeyer, R. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Minho (PT)
  • Centro de Investigação em Serviço Social e Intervenção Social (PT)
  • Universidade Portucalense (PT)
  • University of Aveiro (PT)
  • Portland Institute for Loss and Transition, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Corresponding author
Batista, João
Venue
Death Studies
Published
2024-06-28
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
8-20
ISSN
  • 0748-1187 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-7683
OpenAlex
W4400118934
Cited by
12
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3
FWCI
6.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Death Studies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
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
prolonged grief disorder, meaning-making, bereavement, constructivist therapy, narrative therapy, depression
MeSH terms
Internet-Based Intervention, Adult, Female, Grief, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Treatment Outcome

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