The Fundamental Paradox in the Grief Literature: A Critical Reflection
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
Cites
Statistics
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?
As Breen and O'Connor emphasize, grief should not be oversimplified into categories of normal vs complicated; instead situated within specific historical, social, medical contexts.
“As Breen and O'Connor emphasize (Breen & O'Connor, 2007), grief should not be oversimplified into categories of “normal” versus “complicated.” Instead, it must be situated within the specific historical, social, and medical contexts in which it arises.”
From "I don't grieve as much as I used to": A qualitative study on parents of children with rare and undiagnosed conditions navigating grief in the context of uncertainty. (2025) · cites this paper as Breen & O'Connor, 2007
Cites
From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care
Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14546-1 · Cited by 4,531 · see citing works
Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care.
(2001) · doi:10.1037/10436-000 · Cited by 947 · see citing works
Searching for the meaning of meaning: Grief therapy and the process of reconstruction
Neimeyer, R. A. (2000) · Death Studies · doi:10.1080/07481180050121480 · Cited by 591 · cited 3× · see citing works
“A gap exists between information in the literature and the use of that information by service providers (Bridging Work Group, 2005; Center for the Advancement of Health, 2004; Jordan, 2000; Neimeyer, 2000a).”
BackgroundThe efficacy of bereavement interventions: Determining who benefits.
Schut, H., Stroebe, M. S., van den Bout, J., & Terheggen, M. (2001) · Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care. · doi:10.1037/10436-029 · Cited by 241 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Nevertheless, interventions appear more effective for those with “risk” variables and/or “complicated” grief reactions (Jacobs & Prigerson, 2000; Jordan & Neimeyer 2003; Murray, Terry, Vance, Battistutta, & Connolly, 2000; Neimeyer, 2000b; Schut et al., 2001).”
BackgroundHarwood, D., Hawton, K., Hope, T., & Jacoby, R. (2002) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/s0165-0327(01)00462-1 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
EFFECTS OF A PROGRAM OF INTERVENTION ON PARENTAL DISTRESS FOLLOWING INFANT DEATH
A. Murray, D. J. T. (2000) · Death Studies · doi:10.1080/074811800200469 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Reilly-Smorawski, B., Armstrong, A. V., & Catlin, E. A. (2002) · Death Studies · doi:10.1080/07481180210145 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Who needs bereavement support? A population based survey of bereavement risk and support need
Aoun, S. M., Breen, L. J., Howting, D. A., Rumbold, B., McNamara, B., & Hegney, D. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121101 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Self-citationHoffmann, T. M., Friedrich, B., & Lewis, C. (2025) · Journal of Genetic Counseling · doi:10.1002/jgc4.70149 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“As Breen and O'Connor emphasize (Breen & O'Connor, 2007 ), grief should not be oversimplified into categories of “normal” versus “complicated.””
- Authors
- Breen, L. J., & O'Connor, M.
- Affiliations
- Edith Cowan University (AU)
- Edith Cowan University, Australia
- Corresponding author
- Breen, Lauren J.
- ORCID
- Breen, Lauren J.
- Venue
- OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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