The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Couples' grief and experience of support in the aftermath of miscarriage
Abstract
The aim of this prospective study involving 39 women and 32 partners was to investigate the grief response of both the woman and her partner to miscarriage and to ascertain if support received was adequate and appropriate to their needs. Previous research shows that partners' grief can often be delayed and chronic. Special emphasis is placed on this area in this study. The miscarriage was found to be a significant event and the majority of women and partners still experienced feelings of loss up to 4 months afterwards, describing their reactions as sad or very sad. Scores on the first administration of the Perinatal Grief Scale showed that, in contrast with previous findings, partners scored significantly higher than the women on the three subscales and overall. Partners' scores on the second administration were also higher than those for the women but the difference was not significant. The women tended to receive and welcome social support more than the partners. Support received from health professionals was not always optimal, particularly for partners. Pregnancy subsequent to miscarriage was often viewed with some anxiety. It is argued that the results of the study have important implications for health practice.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“However, a smaller number of studies have found similar grief intensity between men and women [24, 25], or even higher levels of grief in men [26].”
From Factors contributing to men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal death: further development of an emerging model in an Australian sample (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“men scored significantly higher than their female partners on the three subscales and overall scores on the Perinatal Grief Scale.”
From The impact of pregnancy loss on men’s health and wellbeing: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“almost all of the quantitative studies [7, 16–18, 23–35, 37, 38] and a smaller number of the qualitative studies [39, 40, 46] primarily included men as part of a heterosexual couple, with men often recruited through their female partners.”
From The impact of pregnancy loss on men’s health and wellbeing: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“Many studies made no mention of culture or ethnicity at all [10, 16, 17, 32, 34, 36, 43–45], or included a majority of Caucasian participants or those who spoke English [28, 31].”
From The impact of pregnancy loss on men’s health and wellbeing: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“There were mixed findings in terms of overall scale scores across similar studies looking at grief following miscarriage, with Despair (internalised grief) scores higher in men than those for Active Grief (externalised grief) in two studies [87, 95], and lower in the remaining two [91, 96].”
From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [95]
In the citing paper
“Importantly, however, some studies noted that the use of existing grief measures (including the PGS and RIMS) might not be valid for measuring men’s grief experiences, particularly in relation to potential differences between internal versus external grieving styles [23, 84, 89, 95].”
From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [95]
In the citing paper
“Average total grief scores for men in studies using the PGS varied from 36 [93] to 133.19 [95] from a possible range of 33 to 165.”
From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [95]
In the citing paper
“The remaining quantitative studies including age as a predictor did not find a significant association [24, 93, 95], and qualitative studies did not specifically explore or discuss the impact of age on grief.”
From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [95]
In the citing paper
“Although inconsistencies concerning grief between quantitative and qualitative studies highlight the varied nature of men’s experiences, some authors have questioned the ecological validity of current grief measures [23, 84, 89, 95].”
From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [95]
In the citing paper
“This reflects outward expressions of grief and emotions, which men often display less frequently than women [25, 91, 95, 96], and may indicate a selection bias in qualitative studies toward men with more extreme grief responses.”
From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [95]
In the citing paper
“As such, some of the items and subscales have been criticised for measuring more traditionally ‘feminine’ (or intuitive) expressions of grief, which may under-recognise more ‘masculine’ (or instrumental) expressions and responses.”
From Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model (2020) · cites this paper as [95]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–104 of 104
L’impact psychologique de la fausse couche : revue de travaux
Séjourné, N., Callahan, S., & Chabrol, H. (2008) · Sages-Femmes · doi:10.1016/j.sagf.2008.04.011
EFFECTS OF MARITAL SATISFACTION AND RITUAL UTILITY ON BEREAVEMENT EXPERIENCE IN ABORTION
de Oliveira, C. M., Silva, A. D., Ramalho, C. M. A., Costa, M. E., & Martins, M. V. (2022) · Cogitare Enfermagem · doi:10.5380/ce.v27i0.87853
EFECTOS DE LA SATISFACCIÓN MARITAL Y LA UTILIDAD RITUAL EN LA EXPERIENCIA DE AFLICCIÓN EN EL ABORTO
de Oliveira, C. M., Silva, A. D., Ramalho, C. M. A., Costa, M. E., & Martins, M. V. (2022) · Cogitare Enfermagem · doi:10.5380/ce.v27i0.87854
Akesson, B., Frensch, K. M., Alnaji, N., Delioglu, F., & Keftaro, A. H. (2025) · Families in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social Services · doi:10.1177/10443894251375129
Metadata
- Authors
- Conway, K., & Russell, G.
- Affiliations
- Macquarie University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Conway, Kim
- Venue
- British Journal of Medical Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 531-545
- ISSN
- 0007-1129 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2162027715
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 2.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Medical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Keywords
- miscarriage, perinatal grief, couples, social support, Perinatal Grief Scale, health worker support, bereavement
- MeSH terms
- Abortion, Spontaneous, Adult, Anxiety, Female, Grief, Health Personnel, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Pregnancy, Sex Factors, Social Support
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
