| Literature DB >> 29163871 |
Lonneke I M Lenferink1,2, Maarten C Eisma1, Jos de Keijser1, Paul A Boelen2,3.
Abstract
Background: The disappearance of a loved one is a unique type of loss, also termed 'ambiguous loss', which may heighten the risk for developing prolonged grief (PG), depression, and posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptoms. Little is known about protective and risk factors for psychopathology among relatives of missing persons. A potential protective factor is self-compassion, referring to openness toward and acceptance of one's own pain, failures, and inadequacies. One could reason that self-compassion is associated with lower levels of emotional distress following ambiguous loss, because it might serve as a buffer for getting entangled in ruminative thinking about the causes and consequences of the disappearance ('grief rumination'). Objective: In a sample of relatives of missing persons we aimed to examine (1) the prediction that greater self-compassion is related to lower symptom-levels of PG, depression, and PTS and (2) to what extent these associations are mediated by grief rumination. Method: Dutch and Belgian relatives of long-term missing persons (N = 137) completed self-report measures tapping self-compassion, grief rumination, PG, depression, and PTS. Mediation analyses were conducted.Entities:
Keywords: Bereavement; compassion; loss; missing person; repetitive thinking; trauma
Year: 2017 PMID: 29163871 PMCID: PMC5687807 DOI: 10.1080/20008198.2017.1378052
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Psychotraumatol ISSN: 2000-8066
Figure 1.Single-mediation models.
Note. We examined the potential mediating effect of grief rumination in the association between self-compassion and levels of prolonged grief (model 1), depression (model 2), and posttraumatic stress (model 3).
Figure 2.Multiple-mediation models.
Note. We examined the potential mediating effect of subtypes of grief rumination in the association between self-compassion and levels of prolonged grief (model 1), depression (model 2), and posttraumatic stress (model 3).
Characteristics of the participants (N = 137).
| Gender, | |
| Men | 45 (32.8) |
| Women | 92 (67.2) |
| Age (years), | 57.9 (14.1) |
| Educational level, | |
| Low | 32 (23.4) |
| Middle | 45 (32.9) |
| High | 60 (43.8) |
| Lost relative is, | |
| Partner/spouse | 18 (13.1) |
| Child | 44 (30.7) |
| Parent | 14 (10.2) |
| Sibling | 31 (22.6) |
| Other family member | 29 (21.2) |
| Other | 3 (2.2) |
| Number of years since loss, | 15.2 (16.9) |
| Type of disappearance, | |
| Criminal act | 44 (32.1) |
| Voluntarily | 33 (24.1) |
| Accident | 33 (24.0) |
| No specific suspicion | 27 (19.7) |
| Unique victims | 90 (65.7) |
| Recruitment via | |
| Editorial office of TV show about missing persons | 36 (26.3) |
| Peer support organizations | 31 (22.6) |
| Non-governmental support organization | 21 (15.3) |
| Family or friends | 37 (27.0) |
| Other | 12 (8.8) |
Zero-order correlations between all variables (N = 137).
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Prolonged grief | .70*** | .77*** | −.35*** | .79*** | .62*** | .63*** | .69*** | .68*** | .60*** |
| 2. Depression | .83*** | −.41*** | .64*** | .51*** | .57*** | .41*** | .60*** | .52*** | |
| 3. Posttraumatic stress | −.46*** | .70*** | .55*** | .57*** | .54*** | .63*** | .58*** | ||
| 4. Self-compassion | −.29** | −.21* | −.25** | −.24** | −.32*** | −.18* | |||
| 5. UGRS total | .85*** | .76*** | .80*** | .81*** | .84*** | ||||
| 6. UGRS Counterfactuals | .49*** | .68*** | .56*** | .67*** | |||||
| 7. UGRS Relationship | .44*** | .60*** | .60*** | ||||||
| 8. UGRS Injustice | .56*** | .56*** | |||||||
| 9. UGRS Meaning | .62*** | ||||||||
| 10. UGRS Reactions |
UGRS = Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Mediation analyses (n = 1361).
| Model | Mediator | Total effect | Direct effect | Unique indirect effect | MacKinnon effect size | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single mediation | UGRS total | −0.14** | 0.79*** | −0.22*** | −0.11** | −0.11* (−0.20, −0.03) | .50 |
| Multiple mediation | UGRS counterfactuals | −0.02 | 0.16 | −0.09** | <-0.01 (−0.03, 0.01) | .59 | |
| UGRS relationship | −0.03* | 1.18*** | −0.03* (−0.07, −0.01) | ||||
| UGRS injustice | −0.03* | 1.73*** | −0.05* (−0.11, −0.01) | ||||
| UGRS meaning | −0.04*** | 0.90** | −0.04* (−0.08, −0.01) | ||||
| UGRS reactions | −0.02 | 0.15 | <-0.01 (−0.03, 0.01) | ||||
| Single mediation | UGRS total | −0.14** | 0.51*** | −0.25*** | −0.17*** | −0.07* (−0.13, −0.03) | .32 |
| Multiple mediation | UGRS counterfactuals | −0.02 | 0.39 | −0.16*** | −0.01 (−0.05, 0.01) | .36 | |
| UGRS relationship | −0.03* | 0.85* | −0.02* (−0.07, <-0.01) | ||||
| UGRS injustice | −0.03* | 0.05 | <-0.01 (−0.04, 0.03) | ||||
| UGRS meaning | −0.04*** | 1.02* | −0.04* (−0.10, −0.01) | ||||
| UGRS reactions | −0.02 | 0.30 | −0.01 (−0.04, 0.01) | ||||
| Single mediation | UGRS total | −0.14** | 0.75*** | −0.34*** | −0.23*** | −0.11* (−0.19, −0.03) | .32 |
| Multiple mediation | UGRS counterfactuals | −0.02 | 0.34 | −0.22*** | −0.01 (−0.05, 0.01) | .35 | |
| UGRS relationship | −0.03* | 1.04* | −0.03* (−0.09, <-0.01) | ||||
| UGRS injustice | −0.03* | 1.02* | −0.03* (−0.10, <-0.01) | ||||
| UGRS meaning | −0.04*** | 0.94 | −0.04* (−0.10, <-0.01) | ||||
| UGRS reactions | −0.02 | 0.51 | −0.01 (−0.05, 0.01) | ||||
Note. 1 = one participant did not fill in the date of the disappearance of his/her loved one and was therefore excluded from the mediation analyses; UGRS = Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale; a = the effect of X on M while controlling for the covariates; b = the effect of the mediator on Y, while controlling for X, other mediators, and covariates; c = the effect of X on Y; c’ is the direct of X on Y while controlling for the mediator(s) and covariates; BC 95% CI = Bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (5000 resamples); * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.