Cited by 136Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningPalliative and Oncologic Care

The Fundamental Paradox in the Grief Literature: A Critical Reflection

Breen, Lauren J., O'Connor, Moira·2007·OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying

Abstract

A key theme in the bereavement literature is the recognition that every grief experience is unique and dependent on many variables, such as the circumstances of the death, characteristics of the bereaved individual, their relationship with the deceased, the provision and availability of support, and a myriad of sociocultural factors. Concurrently, there are corresponding efforts to define “normal” grief and delineate it from “complicated” grief experiences. The discord between these two potentially opposing statements remains a paradox evident within the three major tensions within the thanatological literature—the dominance of grief theories, the medicalization of grief, and the efficacy of grief interventions. Three recommendations for moving beyond the paradox are discussed—the provision of improved grief education for service providers, the bereaved, and the wider community; the conduct of research that emphasizes the context of grief and is relevant to service provision; and the examination of current grief interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2190/om.55.3.c

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Breen, L. J., & O'Connor, M.
Affiliations
  • Edith Cowan University (AU)
  • Edith Cowan University, Australia
Corresponding author
Breen, Lauren J.
Venue
OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying
Published
2007-10
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
199-218
ISSN
  • 0030-2228 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-3764
OpenAlex
W2139959894
Cited by
136
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
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 and Oncologic Care
Keywords
grief, bereavement, complicated grief, normal grief, medicalization of grief, grief intervention, grief education, thanatology, bereavement support
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Attitude to Death, Bereavement, Child, Female, Grief, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Life Change Events, Male, Models, Psychological, Religion and Psychology, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Evidence-Based Medicine, Spirituality

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