Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of prolonged grief (PG) during the COVID-19 pandemic and to analyze associated variables. 142 family members of patients who died during the lockdown at a hospital were surveyed 6 months after the death. Prolonged grief, depression and anxiety, grief rumination, and loss-related variables were captured. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to detect the associated variables of PG symptoms. Prolonged grief was present in 44.4% of the bereaved. 76.2% of the relatives reported feeling distressed due to visitor restrictions, and the majority of them were unable to bid farewell to their family member at the time of death. Pastoral or psychological care was also lacking. Low education (p < 0.001), emotional closeness (p = 0.007), loss of a spouse (p < 0.001), inability to bid farewell after death (p = 0.024), feeling of threat due to the pandemic (p < 0.001), depression (p = 0.014), and anxiety (p = 0.028) were significantly associated with prolonged grief.

Keywords

COVID-19 pandemic bereavement prolonged grief

Introduction

Since 2020, the world has been facing various lockdown phases due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Koh, 2020). To contain the pandemic, physical contact has been limited, which can cause psychological distress for many people (Pedrosa et al., 2020). This applies particularly to hospitalized individuals and their family members who have to deal with challenges such as communication with medical teams, restricted visitation, and changes to post-mortem rituals (Greenberg et al., 2022; Valley et al., 2020). Qualitative analyses suggest that these challenges, along with patients' isolation and interruptions in relationships, may lead to prolonged grief (Dennis et al., 2022; Kentish-Barnes et al., 2021).

Prolonged grief (PG) refers to severe and persistent grief reactions that occur after the loss of a significant person. PG is currently gaining more attention due to its inclusion in the ICD-11. It is characterized by symptoms such as persistent and pervasive longing for the deceased and intense emotional pain, which have to persist for more than 6 months and cause significant impairment in functioning (World Health Organization, 2018).

PG occurs in approximately one out of 10 bereaved persons (Lundorff et al., 2017), and may have been more prevalent during the pandemic (Bertuccio & Runion, 2020; Eisma et al., 2020; Tang & Xiang, 2021, 2021van Mol et al., 2022). However, some studies have found no difference in grief severity during the pandemic compared to before, but more severe acute grief reactions (Eisma & Tamminga, 2020). The authors suggested, that dealing with loss may be more difficult during this ongoing health crisis. Known predictors of PG include marital closeness, lack of preparation for the death, female gender, psychological problems, unnatural death, and a lack of social support (Lobb et al., 2010; Nielsen et al., 2017). To understand if these factors remain the same during the pandemic, it is crucial to analyze the occurrence of PG in persons who lost their loved ones during lockdowns. Therefore, this study aims to answer the research question: (1) Do bereaved relatives experience more severe prolonged grief symptoms when their loved ones died during COVID-19 lockdown compared to non-lockdown periods? (2) To what extent are specific variables, such as the ability to bid farewell, the relationship with the deceased, or anxiety, associated with PG in bereaved relatives, 6 months after the person's death?

Methods

Procedure

The cohort of patients who passed away during the first and second German lockdowns (March 15th, 2020 to May 31st, 2020, and December 13th, 2020 to February 28th, 2021) at a German university hospital were registered in the pathology department. Six months after the patients' deaths, bereaved relatives were invited to participate in a survey by receiving a letter of invitation and three questionnaires sent to the postal address of the deceased person, along with a return envelope. The bereaved relatives filled out the questionnaires and returned them to the study center. To be included in the study, relatives had to be a family member of the deceased person during the first or second lockdown and have sufficient knowledge of the German language.

The inclusion criteria for comparison studies were: months since loss 6–9, death in a hospital or hospice ward (e.g. palliative care unit, intensive care unit), data acquisition before the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020), measurement ICG Cut-Off 25. Exclusion criteria were: not English or German language, death at home/not in a hospital, months since death less than six or more than 12, other measurements than ICG (e.g. ICG-R) (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Prevalence of Prolonged Grief in the Study Sample and in Comparison Studies Before the Lockdown.

	Prolonged Grief Cut Off>25	Mean/SD ICG	Study Sample	Setting	Illness	Country	Months since Loss
Study sample	44.4% [95% CI, 34.3–53.7%]	24.34 (14.71)	142	Mostly intensive care unit	Mixed	Germany	6
Meta-analyses
Kustanti et al., 2021	14.2% [95% CI, 11.7–16.7%]		14,971	Home care	Cancer	Mixed	6–78
				Hospital
				Hospice
Lundorff et al., 2017	9.8% [95% CI, 6.8–14.0%]		8035	Mixed, not only in hospital	Mixed	Mixed	6–142
Studies with the same criterium ICG cut off>25, death in a hospital, 6–9 months since death
Igarashi et al., 2021	15.5% [95% CI, 8.4–22.6%]	12.8 (12.5)	3173	Palliative care unit	Cancer	Japan	6
Hamano et al., 2021	14.2% [95% CI, 7.4–21.0%]	32.4 (13.4)	458	Palliative care unit	Cancer	Japan	9
Probst et al., 2016	40% [95% CI, 30.4–49.6%]		121	Intensive care unit Hospital	Mixed	USA	9
Kentish-Barnes et al., 2015	52.1% [95% CI, 42.3–61.9%]	27 (16–40) Median	475	Intensive care unit	Mixed	France	9
Chiu et al., 2011	9.7% [95% CI, 4.1–15.3%]	14.9 (11.7) 6.8 (6.7)	432	Hospice ward	Cancer	Taiwan	6
Anderson et al., 2008	46% (95% CI, 22–71%)	22 (12)	50	Intensive care unit	Mixed	USA	6

ICG = Inventory of complicated grief, CI = Confidence Interval.

The study was approved by the institutional review board of the department of medicine at the Philipps University of Marburg (178/20) and was preregistered at the German Clinical Trial Register: DRKS00023713. The study was conducted in accordance with the STROBE guidelines for observational studies to ensure transparency and reporting quality.

Measures

Demographic and grief-associated variables

Participants were asked to provide demographic data (age, gender, years of education, working status) and grief-associated information. Grief-associated variables included relationship to the deceased (i.e. partner/spouse, parent, child, sibling), cause of death (i.e. cancer, COVID-19 etc.), possibilities of communications (i.e. telephone, video telephone), emotional closeness (five-point-Likert scale from “1 = not close” to “5 = very close”) and farewell before and after the death (yes/no). Moreover, participants stated if they felt threatened by the COVID-19 pandemic (eleven-point-Likert scale “0 = not distressed” to “10 = very distressed”), if they felt distressed due to the visitors restrictions (five-point-Likert scale from “1 = never” to “5 = always”), if they desired psychosocial support during the lockdown-phase and now (five-point-Likert scale from “1 = never” to “5 = always”) and if they received the offer of psychosocial support (five-point-Likert scale from “1 = never” to “5 = always”).

Prolonged grief

The Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG) in its German version was used to measure prolonged grief, as it has been shown to be a reliable and valid tool for assessing this construct (Lumbeck et al., 2013; Prigerson et al., 1995) The scale consists of 19 items that assess the immediate thoughts and feelings related to the loss experienced by the participant. The answers are rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (always), and an overall sum score is calculated. A cut-off value of 25 on the ICG was used to identify individuals with prolonged grief, consistent with previous research that suggests this value has good sensitivity and specificity for identifying individuals with prolonged grief disorder (Prigerson et al., 1995). Specifically, studies have shown that individuals with ICG scores above 25 are more likely to experience clinically significant distress and impairment in daily functioning related to grief symptoms. This cut-off value has been used in previous studies and is consistent with the diagnostic criteria for prolonged grief disorder in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). The internal consistency was good to excellent for both the original (Cronbach’s α = .94) and the German version (Cronbach’s α = .87). In this study, internal consistency was also excellent (Cronbach’s α = .93).

Grief Rumination

To measure grief rumination, the Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale (UGRS) was used, as it has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of this construct (Doering et al., 2018; Eisma et al., 2014). The UGRS includes five subscales and one overall score, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of grief-related rumination. Answers are rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often), at which the answers indicate the frequency of rumination-related thoughts and behavior in the last month. The internal consistency was excellent for the overall score UGRS (Cronbach’s α = .90) and good to excellent for the subscales (reactions α = .84; injustice: α = .88; counterfactuals: α = .89; meaning: α = .84; relationships α = .74) (Eisma et al., 2014). In this sample, Cronbach’s alpha was also good to excellent (α = .89).

Symptoms of anxiety and depression

Symptoms of anxiety and depression were measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), which is a well-established measure of these constructs (Herrmann-Lingen et al., 2011; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983). The HADS comprises subscales for anxiety and depression, each ranging from 0 to 21, and an overall sum score, which provides a comprehensive assessment of these symptoms. A score is calculated for each subscale, and the results are classified as indicating minor distress (<15), moderate distress (15–21), or severe distress (>21). The internal consistency of the subscales was found to be good, with Cronbach's α of .80 for anxiety and .81 for depression. Additionally, the current study demonstrated excellent reliability for the depression subscale (α = .90) and very good reliability for the anxiety subscale (α = .86).

Participants

During the first phase of the German lockdown (15.03.2020–31.05.2020), a total of 190 patients passed away in the University Hospital of Marburg. On November 30th, 2020, we sent 189 letters to the addresses of the deceased, which contained a brief description of the study, three questionnaires, and a return envelope. One patient was excluded from the study due to an ongoing criminal investigation. Unfortunately, 24 of the letters (12.7%) were returned unopened due to delivery issues. In the first round, we received 65 completed questionnaires back. During the second phase of the lockdown (13.12.2020–28.02.2021), a total of 220 patients passed away. On July 12th, 2021, we sent the study materials to the corresponding addresses. Unfortunately, 29 letters (13.2%) were returned unopened due to delivery problems. In the second round, we received 78 questionnaires back. One questionnaire from the first round was answered incompletely, resulting in a total sample size of n = 142 participants for analysis.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using SPSS version 26. Missing values, which ranged from 1.5% to 2.3%, were imputed using the expectation maximization method. Prolonged grief was determined using a cut-off score above 25, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all comparison studies based on the z-contribution.

Differences between participants from the two different waves of data collection were calculated using t-tests and chi-square tests. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association of various variables, including psychological, loss- and lockdown-related, and demographic factors, with prolonged grief symptoms. Prior to conducting the logistic regression analyses, a power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1.9.7 software to estimate the required sample size. Based on the power analysis with a desired statistical power of 0.80, and a significance level of 0.05, the sample size required was estimated to be 140. To account for any potential bias or instability in the results, bootstrapping was employed with a resampling size of 1000.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample, which consisted of participants with a mean age of 58.9 years (range: 18–88). Women accounted for 39.4% of the sample. Most participants (66.7%) had less than 11 years of education. Among the participants, 35.5% had lost a partner, and 45.7% had lost a parent. The most common cause of death was cancer (22.4%), followed by organ failure (19.6%) and COVID-19 (18.2%). Overall, 76.2% of the relatives reported feeling distressed due to the visitor's restrictions. There were no significant differences between participants in the first and second lockdown phases regarding demographic, psychological, or loss-related variables, except that family members in the second cohort visited their relatives significantly less often (chi² = 13.915, p = .003) and reported feeling more distressed due to restricted contact possibilities (t = −2.238, p = .027, d = 1.462). Of the participants, 83.1% reported no or rare offers of psychosocial or pastoral support, whereas 16.9% had received such support after the bereavement. Interestingly, 38.2% of the participants had expressed a wish for psychosocial or pastoral support.

Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample and Logistic Regression Analysis.

	Full Sample (N = 142)	Prolonged Grief Candidates (n = 63)	Non-prolonged-grief Candidates (n = 79)	OR (95%CI)	p-value
Age M (SD)	58.89 (14.31, 18–88)	56.87 (12.67)	61.55 (16.17)	1.024 (0.99–1.5	.056
Gender n (%)
male	84 (59.2%)	22 (43.9)	34 (43.0)	0.71 (0.35–1.41)	.332
female	56 (39.4%)	40 (63.9)	44 (55.7)
Education
<10	94 (66.7)	52 (82.5)	42 (53.8)	4.05 (1.84–8.91)	<.001
11 and more	47 (33.3)	11 (17.5)	36 (46.2)
Working n (%)	78 (54.9)	29 (46.0)	49 (62.0)	1.92 (0.98–3.75)	.058
Weekly working hours M (SD)	33.66 (12.42)	31.91 (12.54)	34.71 (12.36)	0.982 (0.945–1.02)	.336
Emotional closeness	4.62 (0.55)	4.77 (0.46)	4.49 (0.66)	2.51 (1.29–4.91)	.007
Relation to the dying M (SD)
Partner	49 (35.5)	35 (55.6)	15 (19.0)	9.92 (2.85–34.47)	<.001
Sibling	6 (4.3)	1 (1.6)	5 (6.3)	0.85 (.08–9.44)	.850
Son/daughter	63 (45.7)	23 (36.5)	42 (53.2)	2.33 (0.70–7.74)	.168
Extended family (e.g. mother-in-law)	20 (14.4)	4 (6.3)	17 (21.5)
Disease of the dying n (%)
Cancer	31 (22.4)	11 (17.5)	20 (25.3)	0.83 (0.19–3.57)	.797
Neurological disease	21 (15.3)	9 (14.3)	12 (15.2)	1.13 (0.24–5.21)	.880
COVID-19	26 (18.2)	15 (23.8)	11 (13.9)	2.05 (0.46–9.03)	.345
Organ failure	28 (19.6)	12 (19.0)	16 (20.3)	1.13 (0.26–4.90)	.875
Cardiovascular	15 (10.5)	5 (7.9)	10 (12.7)	0.75 (0.14–3.94)	.734
Pneumatical disease	5 (3.5)	3 (6.3)	2 (2.5)	2.25 (0.25–20.13)	.486
Emergency/Accident	10 (7.3)	4 (6.3)	6 (7.6)
Duration disease n (%)
<10 Days	13 (9.1)	8 (12.7)	5 (6.3)	2.76 (0.78–9.71)	.115
<1 Month	26 (18.2)	14 822.2)	12 (15.2)	2.01 (0.77–5.28)	.157
<6 Months	22 (15.4)	11 (17.5)	11 (13.9)	1.722 (0.62–4.77)	.295
>6 Months	49 (35.0)	18 (35.3)	31 (39.2)
Missing	32 (22.4)	12 (19.0)	29 (25.3)

M = Mean, SD = standard deviation, Significant values in bold letters, OR = Odds ratio.

Prevalence of Symptoms of Prolonged Grief

Out of the 142 bereaved participants in our study, 63 (44.4%) showed a critical amount of PG symptoms (defined by an ICG-D score >25), whereas 79 (55.6%) did not. In the two current meta-analyses the prevalence were 14.2% and 9.8% (Kustanti et al., 2021; Lundorff et al., 2017). In comparison studies asking bereaved relatives of patients that died in intensive care unit, the prevalence of PG was similar (40–52%) (Anderson et al., 2008; Kentish-Barnes et al., 2015; Probst et al., 2016). In comparison studies analyzing bereaved family members of patients who died in a palliative care unit or hospice ward showed a lower prevalence of 9.7–16% (Chiu et al., 2011; Hamano et al., 2021; Igarashi et al., 2021).

Grief-Associated Variables

To analyze possible associations of demographic, clinical and psychological variables with the presence of PG different logistic regression analyses with bootstrapping procedure were conducted. The Odds Ratios (ORs) with confidence intervals (95% CI) and their level of significance are shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. It can be shown, that a lower educational level is associated with higher levels of PG (OR = 4.05, 95% CI: 1.84–8.91). Additionally, it seems to have an impact how close the connection between deceased patient and the bereaved were. If there was a higher emotional closeness, then the PG symptoms were higher (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.29–4.91). The relation to the dying is of significance, insofar as the amount of PG symptoms is higher if the spouse died (OR = 9.92, 95% CI: 2.85–34.47).

Table 3.

Loss- and Lockdown-Related Variables (Logistic regression analysis).

	Full Sample (N = 142)	Prolonged Grief Candidates (n = 63)	Non-prolonged-grief Candidates (n = 79)	OR (95%CI)	p-value
Hospital Station n (%)
Yes	54 (38.0)	21 (33.3)	33 (41.8)	1.57 (0.78–3.16)	.204
No	82 (63.4)	41 (66.6)	41 (51.9)
Intensive care unit n (%)
Yes	104 (73.2)	50 (79.4)	54 (68.4)	1.54 (0.69–3.48)	.295
No	32 (22.5)	12 (19.0)	20 (25.3)
Palliative care unit n (%)
Yes	23 (16.9)	12 (19.0)	11 (13.9)	1.38 (0.56–3.38)	.488
No	113 (79.6)	50 (79.4)	63 (79.7)
Frequency visits n (%)
Daily	43 (30.3)	22 (34.9)	21 (26.6)	1.35 (0.61–3.01)	.459
Once a week	9 (6.3)	4 (6.3)	5 (6.3)	1.03 (0.25–4.27)	.964
One to four times	34 (23.9)	12 (19.0)	22 (27.8)	0.71 (0.29–1.70)	.437
Not at all	55 (38.0)	24 (38.7)	31 (39.2)
Contact possibilities n (%)
Telephone	67 (45.1)	34 (54.0)	33 (41.8)	1.33 (0.66–2.69)	.425
Messages	21 (14.8)	12 (19.0)	9 (11.4)	1.59 (0.58–4.34)	.364
Videocall	2 (1.4)	1 (3.2)	1 (1.3)	0.78 (0.04–14.55)	.866
Information about the disease n (%)	113 (79.6)	51 (81.0)	62 (78.5)	1.01 (0.405–2.54)	.978
Via telephone	86 (60.6)	40 (63.5)	46 (58.2)	1.123 (0.54–2.35)	.758
Personal	50 (35.2)	24 (38.1)	26 (32.9)	1.18 (0.573–2.426)	.654
Involved into medical decisions n (%)
Yes	92 (64.8)	38 (60.3)	54 (68.4)
No	42 (29.6)	20 (31.7)	22 (27.8)	1.29 (0.62–2.69)	.494
Present at time of death n (%)
Yes	52 (36.6)	28 (44.4)	24 (30.4)
No	90 (63.4)	35 (55.6)	55 (69.6)	1.09 (0.97–4.50)	.085
Farewell before death n (%)
Yes	52 (36.6)	24 (28.1)	28 (35.4)
No	90 (63.4)	39 (61.9)	51 (64.6)	1.12 (0.56–2.23)	.745
Farewell after death n (%)
Yes	82 (57.7)	30 (47.6)	52 (65.8)
No	59 (41.5)	33 (52.4)	26 (32.9)	2.20 (1.11–4.35)	.024
Distressed due to visitor restrictions^a M (SD)	3.58 (1.49)	3.58 (1.60)	3.58 (1.41)	0.891 (0.69–1.15)	.437
Felt threatened because of the pandemic^b M (SD)	5.89 (2.80)	7.07 (2.58)	4.96 (2.63)	1.37 (1.18–1.58)	<.001
Wish for psychosocial support during the lockdown^a M (SD)	1.99 (1.14)	2.38 (1.20)	1.86 (.99)	1.78 (1.28–2.47)	.002
Wish for psychosocial support now^a M (SD)	1.91 (1.10)	2.31 (1.20)	1.58 (.89)	1.93 (1.36–2.73)	<.001
Offer of psychosocial support^a M (SD)	1.57 (1.12)	1.69 (1.23)	1.47 (1.02)	1.19 (0.87–1.63)	.272

Note. ^a Five-point Likert scale: 1 = never to 5 = always ^b eleven-point Likert scale: 0: not at all to 10 = always. M = Mean, SD = standard deviation, Significant values in bold letters, OR = Odds ratio.

Table 4.

Psychological Variables (Logistic Regression Analysis).

	Full Sample (N = 142)	Prolonged Grief Candidates (n = 63)	Non-prolonged Grief Candidates (n = 79)	OR (95%CI)	p-value
ICG prolonged grief M (SD)	24.34 (14.71)	38.11 (9.71)	13.27 (6.30)
HADS depression M (SD)	5.80 (4.68)	9.02 (4.39)	3.23 (3.05)	1.26 (1.05–151)	.014
HADS anxiety M (SD)	6.11 (4.26)	8.70 (4.08)	4.01 (3.10)	1.23 (1.02–1.28)	.028
UGRS meaning M (SD)	10.21 (2.98)	12.14 (2.11)	8.65 (2.68)	1.40 (1.03–1.91)	.031
UGRS relationships M (SD)	5.93 (2.74)	7.05 (1.82)	5.01 (2.36)	0.10 (0.79–1.26)	.980
UGRS counterfactuals M (SD)	7.00 (3.59)	8.65 (3.73)	5.55 (2.62)	0.98 (0.82–1.17)	.823
UGRS injustice M (SD)	5.54 (3.09)	7.56 (3.30)	3.92 (1.63)	1.43 (1.14–1.80)	.002
UGRS reactions M (SD)	6.91 (2.80)	8.43 (2.73)	65.73 (2.21)	1.08 (0.85–1.37)	.531

Note. ICG = Inventory of complicated grief, HADS = Hamilton Anxietx and depression scale, UGRS = Utrecht grief rumination scale.

Significant values in bold letters, OR = Odds ratio.

There were no differences between the different diagnoses, different hospital units nor between the frequency of visits or involvement into medical decisions. Moreover, a missing possibility to bid farewell after the death is associated with more PG (OR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.11–4.35). Participants, who felt more threaten due to the pandemic showed more symptoms of PG (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.18–1.58). The wish for psychosocial support during the lockdown (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.28–2.47) and now (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.36–2.73) was higher in participants with PG symptoms. Nevertheless, there was no difference in the offer of psychosocial support in participants with and without PG.

Out of the psychological variables, depression (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.05–1.51) and anxiety (OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.02–1.28) are associated with PG. Additional, meaning (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.03–1.91) and injustice (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.14–1.80) are associated with PG, but none of the other rumination types.

Additional Analyses

Participants with higher scores on the Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG-D) reported a stronger desire for psychosocial support both during the lockdown period and later during the bereavement process. The correlation was significant for the wish for psychosocial support during the lockdown (r = .329, p < .001) and after the bereavement (r = .306, p < .001). Additionally, participants who felt threatened by the pandemic expressed a greater need for psychosocial support (r = .210, p = .014).The majority of relatives (74.6%) did not receive an offer for psychological or pastoral support, while only 8.5% reported receiving support infrequently and 16.9% reported having regular access to psychosocial or pastoral support. These findings highlight a significant gap in the availability of support services for bereaved individuals during the pandemic.

Discussion

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals worldwide implemented visitor restrictions during lockdown-phases. The study aimed to descriptively evaluate whether bereaved family members experienced higher levels of prolonged grief (PG) during the pandemic compared to non-lockdown times. The prevalence of PG may be higher during the pandemic compared to the general population of bereaved persons, but not compared to bereaved who lost their relatives in intensive care units before the pandemic. Variables such as depression, anxiety, education, relationship, emotional relation to the dying and the possibility not to bid farewell after the death were found to be associated with increased levels of PG.

The prevalence of PG candidates in our study, at 44%, was comparable to other research examining PG prevalence during COVID-19 pandemic, which ranges from 37.8% to 48.4% (Tang & Xiang, 2021; Bovero et al., 2021). Our results indicate that family members of patients who died during the first or second lockdown-phase had a higher prevalence of PG compared to the general population of bereaved persons before the pandemic. This indirectly suggests a connection between prolonged grief and the contact restrictions implemented for infection protection during the pandemic. The PG symptoms observed in our cohort are in the same range as those from bereaved relatives of patients who died in an ICU before the pandemic. It is worth noting that certain parallels can be drawn between the contact restrictions in the pandemic and the visiting restrictions that often exist in ICUs regardless of the pandemic. In many cases, patients in ICUs pass away after a serious illness or accident without the presence of close family members. However, our study demonstrates that high prevalence of PG is not limited to bereaved individuals from ICUs but is equally observed across various care structures in the hospital. This can be attributed to the visiting restrictions implemented during the pandemic.

Participants with increased symptoms of prolonged grief reported feeling more threatened by the pandemic and were more likely to be unable to bid farewell after the death of their loved one. This finding is consistent with qualitative research that suggests many relatives were unable to attend ceremonies or view and mourn the deceased's body during the COVID-19 pandemic (Kentish-Barnes et al., 2021). Relatives reported the feeling of “stolen moments” in the contact possibilities before and after the death. In our study, 38% of the participants have not visited their loved one in the hospital at all, and more than half of the participants were not present at the time of the death, preventing them from not bidding farewell before the death occurred. Furthermore, communication with family members was a critical challenge during the pandemic (Greenberg et al., 2022).

Unsurprisingly, participants who felt emotionally closer showed higher levels of grief, as has been observed in previous research (Bovero et al., 2021; Kustanti et al., 2021; Lobb et al., 2010; Tang & Xiang, 2021). In addition, social support should be provided, particularly to those participants who are at higher risk. It has been shown that participants with higher levels of prolonged grief often express a desire for psychosocial support during and after the bereavement period, highlighting the importance of easily accessible support services. Morris and colleagues suggested multiple steps for hospitals and intensive care units to care for bereaved family members during the COVID-19 pandemic, both before and after the death of a patient (Morris et al., 2020; Wallace et al., 2020). Their suggestions included assigning a clinician or other team member to check in with the family, recommending support groups, and sending a team sympathy card, among other recommendations. While many relatives have expressedsatisfaction with the efforts of the medical staff during the pandemic (Greenberg et al., 2022), it is important to acknowledge that medical staff members have reported being overburdened at various times (Luo et al., 2020). Balancing the demands of providing care to patients while also attending to the emotional needs of bereaved family members can be challenging, highlighting the importance of adequate support for healthcare providers as well.

There were no differences in grief reactions detected between the death due to COVID-19 and deaths from other causes. However, this finding contradicts the results of Eisma and colleagues, who found higher rates of PG in relatives who- lost loved ones to COVID-19 compared to those who experienced natural deaths (Eisma et al., 2021). This association was explained by the unexpectedness of the loss. People who experienced COVID-19-related bereavement more often perceived the loss as unexpected compared to those who experienced natural deaths.

This study results confirm a strong association between bereavement and psychological outcomes such as depression and anxiety (Boelen & Lenferink, 2020; Wang et al., 2021). Specially participants with dysfunctional cognitions were found to be at higher risk for prolonged grief (Boelen & Lenferink, 2020; Doering et al., 2018). Feelings of injustice regarding the loss and thoughts about the personal meaning and consequences of the death were particularly associated with a higher amount of grief symptoms. Furthermore, specific risk assessment tools already exist and are in preparation for German-language use (Müller et al., 2020) and there are promising psychological interventions available for PG (Johannsen et al., 2019; Rosner et al., 2018). In order to enhance nationwide bereavement care services, a stepped care model for professionalized bereavement support is currently being adapted to the German context (Müller et al., 2021). This model will include the provision of psychological treatments at an outpatient level in addition to interventions in the hospital setting.

Limitations

Some important limitations have to be considered on this study. Firstly, we only received 35% of the questionnaires back, which may result in a self-selection bias. It is possible that the current sample may have showed higher rates of PG symptoms as only bereaved relatives with persistent grief felt addressed by the questionnaire. Furthermore, it was not controlled which of the grieving family members completed the questionnaire. Finally, the results are limited by the fact that the study used self-reported measures to determine the prevalence rates instead of objective measures.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be assumed that the pandemic has increased the risk of prolonged grief among vulnerable bereaved compared to before the pandemic. However, the level of risk may be similar to that experienced by bereaved individuals whose loved ones died in an intensive care unit. Thus, pandemic restrictions as the missing possibility to bid farewell after death can be a risk factor. Looking for known risk factors in bereaved participants like being the partner, feeling emotionally closer, having a lower education, and having the thoughts about injustice and meaning would be worthwhile also during the pandemic. Therefore, professionals who work with seriously ill and dying patients, should take these changes in grief processing into account in their daily work and offer appropriate support to the bereaved.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or non-profit-sectors.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Pia von Blanckenburg

Daniel Berthold

Christian Volberg

Note

Author Biographies

Pia von Blanckenburg, PhD, is a registered clinical psychologist with experience in both psychotherapy and psycho-oncology. She has been conducting research in the field of psycho-oncology for over ten years.

Carola Seifart, Prof., MD, is the head of the Ethics Committee at a university hospital and also leads the clinical ethics research group. She is a physician specializing in internal medicine.

Anette Ramaswami, MD, is a senior attending physician in the field of pathology at University Hospital of Marburg.

Daniel Berthold, PHD, works as a palliative psychologist, providing support for individuals facing end-of-life situations and their families. He has significant research experience in the field of bereavement, encompassing both theoretical and empirical aspects.

Christian Volberg, MD, M.A, “Palliative Care”, is resident in the Department of Anesthesiology at Marburg University Hospital. He has a Master’s degree in Palliative Care and works in the palliative care unit at University Hospital of Marburg. He is also member of the Medical Ethics Research Group.

References

Anderson

W. G.

Arnold

R. M.

Angus

D. C.

Bryce

C. L.

(2008). Posttraumatic stress and complicated grief in family members of patients in the intensive care unit. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(11), 1871–1876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0770-2

Bertuccio

R. F.

Runion

M. C.

(2020). Considering grief in mental health outcomes of COVID-19. Psychological Trauma : Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 12(S1), S87–S89. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000723

Boelen

P. A.

Lenferink

L. I. M.

(2020). Symptoms of prolonged grief, posttraumatic stress, and depression in recently bereaved people: Symptom profiles, predictive value, and cognitive behavioural correlates. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55(6), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01776-w

Bovero

Pidinchedda

Clovis

Berchialla

Carletto

(2021). Psychosocial factors associated with complicated grief in caregivers during COVID-19: Results from a preliminary cross-sectional study. Death Studies, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2021.2019144

Chiu

Y.-W.

Yin

S.-M.

Hsieh

H.-Y.

W.-C.

Chuang

H.-Y.

Huang

C.-T.

(2011). Bereaved females are more likely to suffer from mood problems even if they do not meet the criteria for prolonged grief. Psycho-Oncology, 20(10), 1061–1068. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1811

Dennis

Vanstone

Swinton

Brandt Vegas

Dionne

J. C.

Cheung

Clarke

F. J.

Hoad

Boyle

Huynh

Toledo

Soth

Neville

T. H.

Fiest

Cook

D. J.

(2022). Sacrifice and solidarity: A qualitative study of family experiences of death and bereavement in critical care settings during the pandemic. BMJ Open, 12(1), e058768. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058768

Doering

B. K.

Barke

Friehs

Eisma

M. C.

(2018). Assessment of grief-related rumination: Validation of the German version of the Utrecht grief rumination scale (UGRS). BMC Psychiatry, 18(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1630-1

Eisma

M. C.

Boelen

P. A.

Lenferink

L. I. M.

(2020). Prolonged grief disorder following the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Psychiatry Research, 288, 113031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113031.

Eisma

M. C.

Stroebe

M. S.

Schut

H. A. W.

van den Bout

Boelen

P. A.

Stroebe

(2014). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Utrecht grief rumination scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36(1), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9377-y

10.

Eisma

M. C.

Tamminga

(2020). Grief before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Multiple group comparisons. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 60(6), e1–e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.10.004

11.

Eisma

M. C.

Tamminga

Smid

G. E.

Boelen

P. A.

(2021). Acute grief after deaths due to COVID-19, natural causes and unnatural causes: An empirical comparison. Journal of Affective Disorders, 278, 54–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.09.049.

12.

Greenberg

J. A.

Basapur

Quinn

T. V.

Bulger

J. L.

Schwartz

N. H.

S. K.

Shah

R. C.

Glover

C. M.

(2022). Challenges faced by families of critically ill patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient Education and Counseling, 105(2), 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.08.029

13.

Hamano

Morita

Igarashi

Shima

Miyashita

(2021). The association of family functioning and psychological distress in the bereaved families of patients with advanced cancer: A nationwide survey of bereaved family members. Psycho-Oncology, 30(1), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5539

14.

Herrmann-Lingen

Buss

Snaith

(2011). Hospital anxiety and depression scale-deutsche version (HADS-D). Huber.

15.

Igarashi

Aoyama

Ito

Nakajima

Sakaguchi

Morita

Shima

Miyashita

(2021). Comparison of two measures for complicated grief: Brief grief questionnaire (BGQ) and inventory of complicated grief (ICG). Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 51(2), 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyaa185

16.

Johannsen

Damholdt

M. F.

Zachariae

Lundorff

Farver-Vestergaard

O’Connor

(2019). Psychological interventions for grief in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Affective Disorders, 253, 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.065.

17.

Kentish-Barnes

Chaize

Seegers

Legriel

Cariou

Jaber

Lefrant

J.-Y.

Floccard

Renault

Vinatier

Mathonnet

Reuter

Guisset

Cohen-Solal

Cracco

Seguin

Durand-Gasselin

Éon

Thirion

Azoulay

É.

(2015). Complicated grief after death of a relative in the intensive care unit. The European Respiratory Journal, 45(5), 1341–1352. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00160014

18.

Kentish-Barnes

Cohen-Solal

Morin

Souppart

Pochard

Azoulay

(2021). Lived experiences of family members of patients with severe COVID-19 who died in intensive care units in France. JAMA Network Open, 4(6), e2113355-e2113355.

19.

Koh

(2020). COVID-19 lockdowns throughout the world. Occupational Medicine, 70(5), 322.

20.

Kustanti

C. Y.

Chu

Kang

X. L.

Huang

T.-W.

Jen

H.-J.

Liu

Shen Hsiao

S.-T.

Chou

K.-R.

(2021). Prevalence of grief disorders in bereaved families of cancer patients: A meta-analysis. Palliative Medicine, 2692163211066747. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163211066747

21.

Lobb

E. A.

Kristjanson

L. J.

Aoun

S. M.

Monterosso

Halkett

G. K. B.

Davies

(2010). Predictors of complicated grief: A systematic review of empirical studies. Death Studies, 34(8), 673–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2010.496686

22.

Lumbeck

Brandstätter

Geissner

(2013). Erstvalidierung der deutschen version des „inventory of complicated Grief”(ICG-D). Zeitschrift für klinische psychologie und psychotherapie.

23.

Lundorff

Holmgren

Zachariae

(2017). Prevalence of prolonged grief disorder in adult bereavement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 212, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.030.

24.

Luo

Guo

Jiang

Wang

(2020). The psychological and mental impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on medical staff and general public – A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 291, 113190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113190.

25.

Morris

S. E.

Moment

Thomas

J. d.

(2020). Caring for bereaved family members during the COVID-19 pandemic: Before and After the death of a patient. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 60(2), e70-e74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.05.002

26.

Müller

Berthold

Bongard

Gramm

Hauch

Sibelius

(2020). Komplizierte trauer erfassen: Ein systematischer review. PPmP-Psychotherapie· Psychosomatik· Medizinische Psychologie, 70(12), 490–498.

27.

Müller

Münch

Bongard

Hauch

Sibelius

Berthold

(2021). Trauerversorgung in Deutschland. Entwurf eines gestuften Versorgungsmodells. Zeitschrift Für Evidenz, Fortbildung Und Qualität Im Gesundheitswesen, 162, 40–44.

28.

Nielsen

M. K.

Neergaard

M. A.

Jensen

A. B.

Vedsted

Bro

Guldin

M.-B.

(2017). Predictors of complicated grief and depression in bereaved caregivers: A nationwide prospective cohort study. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 53(3), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.09.013

29.

Pedrosa

A. L.

Bitencourt

Fróes

A. C. F.

Cazumbá

M. L. B.

Campos

R. G. B.

Brito

S. B. C. S.

Simões E Silva

A. C.

(2020). Emotional, behavioral, and psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 566212. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566212.

30.

Prigerson

H. G.

Maciejewski

P. K.

Reynolds

C. F.

Bierhals

A. J.

Newsom

J. T.

Fasiczka

Frank

Doman

Miller

(1995). Inventory of complicated grief: A scale to measure maladaptive symptoms of loss. Psychiatry Research, 59(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(95)02757-2

31.

Probst

D. R.

Gustin

J. L.

Goodman

L. F.

Lorenz

Wells-Di Gregorio

S. M.

(2016). Icu versus non-ICU hospital death: Family member complicated grief, posttraumatic stress, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 19(4), 387–393. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2015.0120

32.

Rosner

Rimane

Vogel

Rau

Hagl

(2018). Treating prolonged grief disorder with prolonged grief-specific cognitive behavioral therapy: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 19(1), 241. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2618-3

33.

Tang

Xiang

(2021). Who suffered most after deaths due to COVID-19? Prevalence and correlates of prolonged grief disorder in COVID-19 related bereaved adults. Globalization and Health, 17(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00669-5

34.

Valley

Schutz

Nagle

Miles

Lipman

Ketcham

Kent

Hibbard

Harlan

Hauschildt

(2020). Changes to visitation policies and communication practices in Michigan ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 202(6), 883–885. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202005-1706LE

35.

van Mol

Wagener

Rietjens

Uil

C. A. den.

(2022). Symptoms of psychological distress among bereaved relatives of deceased patients in the intensive care unit during the first COVID-19 wave. Intensive Care Medicine, 1–2.

36.

Wallace

C. L.

Wladkowski

S. P.

Gibson

White

(2020). Grief during the COVID-19 pandemic: Considerations for palliative care providers. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 60(1), e70–e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.04.012

37.

Wang

Verdery

A. M.

Margolis

Smith-Greenaway

(2021). Bereavement from COVID-19, gender, and reports of depression among older adults in Europe.

38.

World Health Organization. (2018). ICD-11 for mortality and morbidity statistics (ICD-11 MMS).

39.

Zigmond

A. S.

Snaith

R. P.

(1983). The hospital Anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x

Prolonged Grief in Times of Lockdown During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Procedure

Measures

Demographic and grief-associated variables

Prolonged grief

Grief Rumination

Symptoms of anxiety and depression

Participants

Data Analysis

Results

Sample Characteristics

Prevalence of Symptoms of Prolonged Grief

Grief-Associated Variables

Additional Analyses

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Note

Author Biographies

References