CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 180Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

What sources of bereavement support are perceived helpful by bereaved people and why? Empirical evidence for the compassionate communities approach

Open access
Aoun, Samar M, Breen, Lauren J, White, Ishta, Rumbold, Bruce, Kellehear, Allan·2018·Palliative Medicine
DOI 10.1177/0269216318774995PMC PMC6088515
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Aims: To determine who provides bereavement support in the community, what sources are perceived to be the most or least helpful and for what reason, and to identify the empirical elements for optimal support in developing any future compassionate communities approach in palliative care. Design: A population-based cross-sectional investigation of bereavement experiences. Sources of support (informal, community and professional) were categorised according to the Public Health Model of Bereavement Support; most helpful reasons were categorised using the Social Provisions Scale, and least helpful were analysed using inductive content analysis. Setting and participants: Bereaved people were recruited from databases of funeral providers in Australia via an anonymous postal survey (2013–2014). Results: In total, 678 bereaved people responded to the survey. The most frequently used sources of support were in the informal category such as family, friends and funeral providers. While the professional category sources were the least used, they had the highest proportions of perceived unhelpfulness whereas the lowest proportions of unhelpfulness were in the informal category. The functional types of helpful support were Attachment, Reliable Alliance, Social Integration and Guidance. The five themes for least helpful support were: Insensitivity, Absence of Anticipated Support, Poor Advice, Lack of Empathy and Systemic Hindrance. Conclusion: A public health approach, as exemplified by compassionate communities policies and practices, should be adopted to support the majority of bereaved people as much of this support is already provided in informal and other community settings by a range of people already involved in the everyday lives of those recently bereaved. This study has provided further support for the need to strengthen the compassionate communities approach, not only for end of life care for dying patients but also along the continuum of bereavement 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 · 10.1177/0269216318774995

Cites

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?

  • Informal sources like family and friends are more commonly used by caregivers, while professional sources are least utilized and perceived as less helpful.

    “informal sources like family and friends are more commonly used by caregivers, with professional sources being the least utilized and perceived as less helpful [7].”

    From Exploring the Unmet Needs of Cancer Caregivers in India: A Cross-Sectional Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Results (Perceived helpfulness; page not provided) say informal sources such as family and friends were used most often, while professional sources were used least often and had the highest proportions of perceived unhelpfulness. The Methods (Participants and procedures; page not provided) describe respondents as bereaved people, not specifically caregivers, so the claim's population is narrower than the study's. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 41 · Cited by 180

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. [3]Bottomley JS Burke LA Neimeyer RA Domains of social support that predict bereavement distress following homicide loss. Omega 2017; 75: 3– 25. 28395645
  2. [4]Logan EL Thornton JA Breen LJ What determines supportive behaviors following bereavement? A systematic review and call to action. Death Stud 2017; 42: 104– 114. 28494205
  3. [5]Albrecht T Adelman M Communicating social support. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1987.
  4. [6]Stylianos SK Vachon MLS The role of social support in bereavement. In: Stroebe M Stroebe W Hansson R (eds) Handbook of bereavement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 397– 410.
  5. [7]Murray JA Communicating with the community about grieving: a description and review of the foundations of a broken leg analogy of grieving. J Loss Trauma 2002; 7: 47– 69.
  6. [10]Rumbold B Aoun S An assets-based approach to bereavement care. Bereave Care 2016; 34: 99– 102.
  7. [11]Sallnow L Paul S Understanding community engagement in end-of-life care: developing conceptual clarity. Crit Public Health 2015; 25: 231– 238.
  8. [12]Kellehear A Compassionate cities: public health and end-of-life care. London: Routledge, 2005.
  9. [13]Sallnow L Kumar S Kellehear A International perspectives on public health and palliative care. Abingdon: Routledge, 2013.
  10. [14]Wegleitner K Heimerl K Kellehear A Compassionate communities: case studies from Britain and Europe. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016.
  11. [15]Kellehear A Compassionate communities: end-of-life care as everyone’s responsibility. QJM 2013; 106: 1071– 1075. 24082152
  12. [17]Dyregrov K Micro-sociological analysis of social support following traumatic bereavement: unhelpful and avoidant responses from the community. Omega 2004; 48: 23– 44.
  13. [18]Lehman DR Ellard JH Wortman CB Social support for the bereaved: recipients’ and providers’ perspectives on what is helpful. J Consult Clin Psych 1986; 54: 438– 446.
  14. [19]Peters K Cunningham C Murphy G et al Helpful and unhelpful responses after suicide: experiences of bereaved family members. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2016; 25: 418– 425. 27037948
  15. [20]Bonanno GA Wortman CB Lehman DR et al Resilience to loss and chronic grief: a prospective study from preloss to 18-months postloss. J Pers Soc Psychol 2002; 83: 1150– 1164. 12416919
  16. [22]Weis R The provisions of social relationships. In: Rubin Z (ed.) Doing unto others. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974, pp. 17– 26.
  17. [23]Cutrona C Russell D The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In: Jones W Perlman D (eds) Advances in personal relationships: a research annual. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987, pp. 37– 67.
  18. [24]Breen LJ Aoun SM O’Connor M et al Bridging the gaps in palliative care bereavement support: an international perspective. Death Stud 2014; 38: 54– 61. 24521046
  19. [25]Wittouck C Van Autreve S De Jaegere E et al The prevention and treatment of complicated grief: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2011; 31: 69– 78. 21130937
  20. [26]Aoun SM Breen LJ Rumbold B et al Reported experiences of bereavement support in Western Australia: a pilot study. Aust NZ J Publ Heal 2014; 38: 473– 479. 24750475
  21. [27]Gottlieb BH Bergen AE Social support concepts and measures. J Psychosom Res 2010; 69: 511– 520. 20955871
  22. [29]Horsfall D Noonan K Leonard R Bringing our dying home: how caring for someone at end of life builds social capital and develops compassionate communities. Health Sociol Rev 2012; 21: 373– 382.
  23. [30]Aoun SM Rumbold B Howting D et al Bereavement support for family caregivers: the gap between guidelines and practice in palliative care. PLoS ONE 2017; 12: e0184750. 28977013 PMC5627900
  24. [31]Breen LJ Fernandez M O’Connor M et al The preparation of graduate health professionals for working with bereaved clients: an Australian perspective. Omega 2012; 66: 313– 332. 23785983
  25. [32]Dickinson GE Sumner ED Frederick LM Death education in selected health professions. Death Stud 1992; 16: 281– 289. 10118944
  26. [33]Breen LJ Professionals’ experiences of grief counseling: implications for bridging the gap between research and practice. Omega 2010; 62: 285– 303. 21495536
  27. [34]O’Connor M Breen LJ General practitioners’ experiences of bereavement care and their educational support needs: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ 2014; 14: 59. 24670040 PMC3986890
  28. [35]Waller A Turon H Mansfield E et al Assisting the bereaved: a systematic review of the evidence for grief counselling. Palliat Med 2016; 30: 132– 148. 26415735
  29. [37]Vachon MLS Stylianos SK The role of social support in bereavement. J Soc Issues 1988; 44: 175– 190.
  30. [38]Breen LJ O’Connor M Acts of resistance: breaking the silence of grief following traffic crash fatalities. Death Stud 2010; 34: 30– 53. 24479174
  31. [39]Horsfall D Leonard R Noonan K et al Working together–apart: exploring the relationships between formal and informal care networks for people dying at home. Prog Palliat Care 2013; 21: 331– 336.
  32. [41]Cronin P Compassionate communities in Shropshire, West Midlands, England. In: Wegleitner K Heimerl K Kellehear A (eds) Compassionate communities: case studies from Britain and Europe. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016, pp. 30– 45.
  33. [43]Kellehear A The compassionate city charter: inviting the cultural and social sectors into end-of-life care. In: Wegleitner K Heimerl K Kellehear (eds) Compassionate communities: case studies from Britain and Europe. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016, pp. 76– 87.
  34. [44]O’Mara-Eves A Brunton G McDaid D et al Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2013 (Public Health Research, No. 1.4.) Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK262817/ doi: 10.3310/phr01040 25642563 · DOI
  35. [45]Walter T A new model of grief: bereavement and biography. Mortality 1996; 1: 7– 25.
  36. [46]Calanzani N Higginson IJ Koffman J et al Factors associated with participation, active refusals and reasons for not taking part in a mortality followback survey evaluating end-of-life care. PLoS ONE 2016; 11: e0146134. 26745379 PMC4706352
  37. [47]Hunt K Shlomo N Addington-Hall J Participant recruitment in sensitive surveys: a comparative trial of ‘opt in’ versus ‘opt out’ approaches. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 3. 23311340 PMC3566917
  38. [48]O’Cathain A Thomas KJ ‘Any other comments?’ Open questions on questionnaires – a bane or a bonus to research? BMC Med Res Methodol 2004; 4: 25. 15533249 PMC533875

Authors
Aoun, S. M., Breen, L. J., White, I., Rumbold, B., & Kellehear, A.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • University of Bradford (GB)
Corresponding author
Aoun, Samar M
ORCID
Venue
Palliative Medicine
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-05-14
Volume
32
Issue
8
Pages
1378-1388
ISSN
  • 0269-2163 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-030X
DOI
10.1177/0269216318774995
PMC
PMC6088515
OpenAlex
W2804707676
Cited by
180
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4
FWCI
18.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Palliative Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bradford Scholars (University of Bradford) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • La Trobe University
Funders
Health Department of Western Australia
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
bereavement support, compassionate communities, palliative care, informal support, community support, professional support, Social Provisions Scale, end-of-life care, bereaved people
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Australia, Bereavement, Cross-Sectional Studies, Empathy, Family, Female, Grief, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Support, Terminal Care

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