| Literature DB >> 35270658 |
Rebecca Goodall1, Karolina Krysinska2, Karl Andriessen2.
Abstract
The concept of continuing bonds as an alternative to detachment from the deceased person has gained traction in grief literature over the years. Those bereaved by suicide are likely to experience various grief reactions and may be at-risk for adverse grief and mental health outcomes. However, it remains unclear how those bereaved by suicide experience continuing bonds. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. Searches of peer-reviewed literature in Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Emcare, EBM Reviews, and Scopus identified 15 studies (2 quantitative and 13 qualitative) reporting on 12 samples, published between 2010 and 2021. The study quality of the quantitative studies was poor, but it was fair amongst the qualitative studies. People bereaved by suicide experienced continuing bonds across a variety of domains and reported mostly positive experiences. Factors that tended to have an impact on the expression of continuing bonds included time since bereavement, relationship to the deceased, social expectations, sex of the bereaved, and the ability of the bereaved to make meaning of the death. The review concludes that most participants reported positive experiences with continuing bonds. However, discrepancies between males and females and between those bereaved by suicide and those bereaved by other causes warrants further investigation. In addition, longitudinal community-based research involving representative samples is needed to understand the evolution and experience of continuing bonds over time in those bereaved by suicide and to inform future efforts in supporting them.Entities:
Keywords: bereavement; continuing bonds; grief; suicide; systematic review
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270658 PMCID: PMC8910367 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052963
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1PRISMA Flow Diagram.
Summary of quantitative studies.
| Author, Year, Location | Eligibility Criteria | Sample Size | Male/Female | Age | Time since Bereavement | Relationship to Deceased | Setting | Study Design | Outcome Measures | Main Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levi-Belz (2017) Israel [ | >18 y/o, identify as a bereaved family member. Excl.: <15 y/o at time of death, inability to speak or write in Hebrew or English. | M = 30 | 18–73 suicide loss survivor M = 40.5, SD = 15.6, | 2 m–45 y (M = 95 m, SD = 105.46 m) | 25 parents, 11 children, 26 siblings, 30 spouses, and 44 close family members, 9 unknown | Online questionnaire | Cross sectional | Level of functioning: Two-track bereavement questionnaire (TTBQ), Post-traumatic grief level: Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS) | Suicide-loss survivors reported lower levels of close positive continuing bonds with the deceased than did participants from the sudden- and expected-death bereaved groups. | |
| Jahn et al. (2014) USA [ | Survivors of suicide loss | M = 135 | 40–85 | 1 y–3 y (28.9%; | Parent ( | Two questionnaires—one demographics and one about experience of suicide. Both containing both qualitative and quantitative info | Descriptive statistics used to explore characteristics of loss and chi squared to examine demographical differences between responses | Two questionnaires: (i) demographic questionnaire, (ii) spiritual experiences of survivors of suicide, including questions about type and frequency of spiritual experiences | Most ( |
Summary of qualitative studies.
| Author, Year, Location | Eligibility Criteria | Sample Size | Male/Female | Age (Years) | Time Since Bereavement | Relationship to Deceased | Setting | Study Design | Main Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adams et al. (2019) AUS [ | Bereaved by suicide of sibling (sibling <20 y/o) in past 10 yrs | M = 4 | 20–27 at time of interview (16–23 at time of suicide) | Average time = 3 y 9 m | Sibling | Telephone interview | Interpretive phenomen-ological analysis (IPA) | Identified 4 main themes: (a) the process of grief, (b) grief interactions (within families and outside), (c) continuing bonds, and (d) meaning-making and growth through grief. | |
| Bailey et al. (2015) UK [ | Family members and friends who own suicide memorial sites | M = 3 | 20–60 | 5 m–4 y | Parent, siblings or friends | Face-to-face interviews—semi-structured narrative style | Qualitative interpretative approach, combining constant comparison techniques with thematic analysis | The most common motivating factor for starting a memorial page was to ‘keep the deceased alive’ and maintain a connection. Participants found that they were able to better construct and refine relationships with the deceased using online memorials. | |
| Bell et al. (2015) UK [ | Individuals who had set up or were managing memorial sites for those who dies by suicide | M = 3 | 20–60 | 5 m–4 y | Parent, siblings or friends | Individual interviews | Qualitative interpretative approach, combining constant comparison techniques with thematic analysis | Provided insight into how online memorialisation allows more flexibility and depth in the exploration of grief than can traditional mourning objects—this allows users to reminisce on positive aspects of deceased life but can elicit negative experiences as users can’t control how memories are framed. | |
| Castelli Dransart (2018) Switzerland [ | Suicide-survivors: A person was considered as a survivor of suicide if: (1) he/she self-qualified as such; (2) he/she felt emotionally close to the deceased; and (3) his/her life had been disrupted by a suicide (self-perception). >18 y/o, able to speak Italian, French or German | M = 11 | 14–73 | <12 m–16 y | 18 mothers, 5 fathers, 10 sisters, 3 brothers, 3 daughters, 1 son, 7 partners, 1 aunt, 2 friends | Face-to-face in depth interviews conducted by author or mental health carer, either at home or location chosen by bereaved | Grounded Theory using constant comparison of data and 3 steps of coding: open, axial & selective | Suicide triggered spiritual and religious thoughts and experiences for most participants. Even those who claimed to be atheist or agnostic noted religious rituals and spiritual symbols as being important contributors in forging and maintaining a continuing bond with the deceased and in honouring their memory. Interviewees believed loved ones continued to exist in an alternative dimension or space (regardless of religion). | |
| Entilli et al. (2021) AUS [ | Parents who had lost a child by suicide less than 6 months prior to starting the study | M = 7 | Female mean = 60.1 years, range = 50–78 years and male mean = 59.9 years, range = 50–68 years | 6 m, 12 m and 24 m | Parents who had lost a child (aged 15–51) by suicide. Ten were bereaved of sons and four bereaved of daughters | Semi-structured interviews either phone or face-to-face | Longitudinal study using thematic analysis | Three key themes were identified in an earlier analysis (at 6 and 12 months post loss): searching for answers and sense-making, coping strategies and support, and finding meaning and purpose. | |
| Gall et al. (2015) Canada [ | Individuals who had personal experiences of suicide bereavement | M = 2 | Mean age was 49 (bereaved) and 53 (MHW) | Mean = 13 y, minimum of 2 y | The deceased persons were: four sons, two fathers, two close friends, two uncles and one mother. | Semi-structured interviews | Phenomenological approach, thematic analysis | Individuals had difficulty reconciling the suicide death of a loved one with their religious views. This often led to a personally defined spirituality rather than a complete loss of faith. Many individuals (also non-religious) found meaning in the belief of an afterlife and/or felt hopeful that the deceased was in a better place and would someday reconnect with them. Engagement in activities to maintain a bond were common. | |
| Hunt et al. (2019) USA [ | >18 y/o, self-identified as suicide loss survivor, >5 years since death | M = 6 | 30–72 (mean = 47.6) | 5 y–30 y (mean = 18.6 y) | 5 siblings, 2 partners, 2 parents and one participant who had lost a sibling, grandfather and cousin | Face-to-face semi-structured interviews at participants homes | Thematic analysis informed by grounded theory | Three major themes were identified: one harmful (feelings of responsibility) one helpful (making meaning) to the process of suicide bereavement. one that helped shift from harmful to helpful (social support) | |
| Jahn et al. (2018) USA [ | Any person who identified as bereaved by suicide | M = 135 | 40–85 | 1 y–3 y (28.9%; | Anyone bereaved by suicide | Two questionnaires—one demographics and one about spiritual experiences after suicide bereavement. Both containing both qualitative and quantitative info | Inductive thematic analysis | Nine main themes were identified: (1) a helpful sense of comfort; (2) a helpful sense of connection with the deceased; (3) intense sadness evoked by the spiritual experiences; (4) confusion regarding the spiritual experiences; (5) negative reminders of the deceased or negative meanings of spiritual experiences; (6) evidence of an afterlife; (7) general importance of the spiritual experiences’ meaning; (8) impact of and on religious beliefs; and (9) others’ responses to disclosure of suicide or spiritual experiences. | |
| Leichtentritt et al. (2015) Israel [ | Having experienced the loss of a sibling to suicide and the death having occurred at least five years prior to the interview | M = 3 | 29–63 | 5 y–37 y | Sibling | In-depth interviews | Relational dialect theory and narrative analysis used. | Five characteristics of the post death relationship were identified, each existing along a continuum: | |
| Maple et al. (2013) AUS [ | Parents who lost a child by suicide | M = 6 | NA | 6 m–>26 y | 22 parents (6 fathers and 16 mothers) from 18 families bereaved of 15 sons and 3 daughters. 14 participated individually and 4 as couples | In-depth interviews, mostly face-to-face (one phone) | Narrative Inquiry, recursive technique used to explore in more depth. | Contrary to traditional grief literature, it was found that parents needed to maintain a relationship with their deceased child. Manifestations of continuing bonds varied between parents. Commencing with the funeral, parents began developing rituals ensuring that their child’s life, and not the manner of death, was celebrated. | |
| Ross et al. (2018) AUS [ | Parents bereaved by suicide loss of their child 6 months prior to commencement of study | M = 7 | 50–78 (female mean = 60.1 years and range = 50–78, male mean = 59.9 years and range = 50–68) | 6 m and 12 m | Parents who had lost a child (aged 15–51) by suicide. Ten were bereaved of sons and four bereaved of daughters | Individual, semi-structured interviews either face-to-face or telephone | Longitudinal study with inductive qualitative approach. | Identified three key themes (searching for answers and sense-making, coping strategies and support, and finding meaning and purpose) in parental responses to suicide bereavement. | |
| Sands et al. (2010) AUS [ | Adults >19 y/o, bereaved through the suicide death of a significant person in their lives | NA | Aged 19+ | >2 m | Family members or spouses: partner grieving a partner, parent grieving a child, sibling grieving a sibling, and adult child grieving a parent | A series of workshops delivered over 12 weeks and 30 h–involved discussion, artwork, grief rituals and journal writing | Generic thematic analysis | Identified 3 core themes that assisted in meaning making in relationships with the themselves, the deceased, and with others. The 3 themes were: (i) Intentionality (‘tying on the shoes’ or adopting the perspective of the deceased), (ii) Reconstruction (‘walking in the shoes’), (iii) Repositioning (‘taking off the shoes’) | |
| Wood et al. (2012) UK [ | 8–15 y/o (M = 11.80, SD = 2.57), whose parent had died by suicide within the previous 13 to 53 months | M = 5 | 8–15 | 13 m–53 m | Eight children bereaved of a father and two bereaved of a mother | Semi-structured interviews, face-to-face at participants’ homes | Interpretative Phenomen-ological Analysis | Found 3 main themes: thinking about the deceased; coping strategies; and connecting to the deceased. |
Quality assessment 1 of quantitative studies.
| Topic | Jahn & Spencer-Thomas, 2014 [ | Levi-Belz, 2017 [ |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| (1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort | ||
| (a) Truly representative (one star) | ||
| (b) Somewhat representative (one star) | ||
| (c) Selected group | X | X |
| (d) No description | ||
| (2) Selection of the non-exposed cohort | ||
| (a) Drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort (one star) | N/a | X |
| (b) Drawn from a different source | ||
| (c) No description | ||
| (3) Ascertainment of exposure | ||
| (a) Secure record (e.g., surgical record) (one star) | ||
| (b) Structured interview (one star) | ||
| (c) Written self-report | X | X |
| (d) No description | ||
| (e) Other | ||
| (4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study | ||
| (a) Yes (one star) | X | X |
| (b) No | ||
|
| ||
| (1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis controlled for confounders | ||
| (a) The study controls for age, sex and marital status (one star) | X | |
| (b) Study controls for other factors (list) (one star) | X | |
| (c) Controls are not comparable | ||
|
| ||
| (1) Assessment of outcome | ||
| (a) Independent blind assessment (one star) | ||
| (b) Record linkage (one star) | ||
| (c) Self-report | X | X |
| (d) No description | ||
| (e) Other | ||
| (2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur | ||
| (a) Yes (one star) | X | X |
| (b) No | ||
| Indicate the mean duration of follow-up and a brief rationale for the assessment above | Range <1–20+ years | Range 2–540 months |
| (3) Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | ||
| (a) Complete follow-up, all subjects accounted for (one star) | ||
| (b) Subjects lost to follow-up unlikely to introduce bias, number lost less than or equal to 20% or description of those lost suggested no different from those followed (one star) | ||
| (c) Follow-up rate less than 80% and no description of those lost | ||
| (d) No statement | X | X |
|
| ||
| Selection | 1 | 2 |
| Comparability | 0 | 2 |
| Outcome | 1 | 1 |
|
| Poor | Poor |
1 Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies [12]. Note: A study can be given a maximum of one star for each numbered item within the Selection and Outcome categories. A maximum of two stars can be given for Comparability. Thresholds for converting the Newcastle-Ottawa scales to AHRQ standards (good, fair, and poor): Good quality: 3 or 4 stars in selection domain AND 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain AND 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain. Fair quality: 2 stars in selection domain AND 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain AND 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain. Poor quality: 0 or 1 star in selection domain OR 0 stars in comparability domain OR 0 or 1 stars in outcome/exposure domain.
Quality assessment 1 of qualitative studies.
| Topic | Adams et al., 2019 [ | Bailey et al., 2015 [ | Bell et al., 2015 [ | Castelli, 2018 [ | Entilli et al., 2021 [ | Gall et al., 2015 [ | Hunt et al., 2019 [ | Jahn et al., 2018 [ | Leichtentritt et al., 2015 [ | Maple et al., 2013 [ | Ross et al., 2018 [ | Sands et al., 2010 [ | Wood et al., 2012 [ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 1 | Interviewer/facilitator | p. 2 324–325 | p. 4 | p. 337 | p. 59 | p. 3 | p. 103 | |||||||
| 2 | Credentials | p. 325 | p. 2 | p. 2 | p. 121 | |||||||||
| 3 | Occupation | p. 325 | p. 2 | p. 1107 | p. 59 | p. 3 | p. 121 | |||||||
| 4 | Gender | p. 324 | p. 2 | p. 337 | p. 2 | p.105/121 | ||||||||
| 5 | Experience and training | p. 325 | p. 4 | p. 2 | p. 1107 | p. 59 | p. 2 | p. 121 | ||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 6 | Relationship established | p. 4 | p. 878 | |||||||||||
| 7 | Participant knowledge of the interviewer | p. 337 | p. 3 | |||||||||||
| 8 | Interviewer characteristics | p. 324–325 | p. 337 | p. 59 | p. 2 | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 9 | Methodological orientation and theory | p. 325 | p. 75 | p. 379 | p. 3–4 | p. 3 | p. 102 | p. 336 | p. 6 | p. 1105–1106 | p. 59 | p. 2–3 | p. 99–102 | p. 877 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 10 | Sampling | p. 325 | p. 74 | p. 378 | p. 4 | p. 2–3 | p. 101 | p. 336 | p. 5 | p. 1105 | p. 59 | p. 2 | p. 103 | p. 877 |
| 11 | Method of approach | p. 325 | p. 74 | p. 378 | p. 4 | p. 2 | p. 101–102 | p. 336–337 | p. 5–6 | p. 1105 | p. 59 | p. 2 | p. 103–104 | p. 877–879 |
| 12 | Sample size | p. 325 | p. 74 | p. 378 | p. 5 | p. 2 | p. 101 | p. 336 | p. 5 | p. 1105 | p. 59 | p. 2–3 | p. 103 | p. 877 |
| 13 | Non-participation | p. 325 | p. 2–3 | |||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 14 | Setting of data collection | p. 325 | p. 75 | p. 4 | p. 2 | p. 336 | p. 5 | p. 59 | p. 2 | p. 103 | p. 878 | |||
| 15 | Presence of non-participants | p. 59 | ||||||||||||
| 16 | Description of sample | p. 325 | p. 74 | p. 378 | p. 5 | p. 2–3 | p. 101 | p. 336 | p. 5 | p. 1105 | p. 59 | p. 2–3 | p. 103 | p. 877–878 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 17 | Interview guide | p. 325 | p. 74–75 | p. 378 | p. 3–4 | p. 2 | p. 102 | p. 337 | p. 5–6 | p. 1106 | p. 59 | p. 2 | p. 103–104 | p. 878–879 |
| 18 | Repeat interviews | p. 2 | p. 102 | p. 2 | ||||||||||
| 19 | Audio/visual recording | p. 325 | p. 75 | p. 378 | p. 4 | p. 2 | p. 102 | p. 337 | p. 1106 | p. 59 | p. 2 | p. 103 | p. 879 | |
| 20 | Field notes | p. 4 | p. 1107 | |||||||||||
| 21 | Duration | p. 325 | p. 75 | p. 4 | p. 3 | p. 101 | p. 1106 | p. 59 | p. 2 | p. 103–104 | p. 878 | |||
| 22 | Data saturation | p. 5 | p. 2 | p. 338 | p. 2–3 | |||||||||
| 23 | Transcripts returned | p. 5 | ||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 24 | Number of data coders | p. 325 | p. 3 | p. 102 | p. 337 | p. 6 | p. 3 | p. 105 | p. 879 | |||||
| 25 | Description of the coding tree | p. 326 | p. 3–6 | p. 337–338 | ||||||||||
| 26 | Derivation of themes | p. 325 | p. 75 | p. 378 | p. 4 | p. 3 | p. 102 | p. 337 | p. 6 | p. 1107 | p. 59 | p. 3 | p. 105–106 | p. 879 |
| 27 | Software | p. 4 | p. 3 | p. 6 | p. 3 | |||||||||
| 28 | Participant checking | p. 5 | p. 337 | |||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 29 | Quotations presented | p. 326–329 | p. 76–81 | p. 380–385 | p. 6–14 | p. 3–6 | p. 102–108 | p. 338–342 | p. 6–10 | p. 1108–1114 | p. 60–64 | p. 3–6 | p. 107–113 | p. 880–888 |
| 30 | Data and findings consistent | p. 329–331 | p. 81–83 | p. 383–386 | p. 14–17 | p. 6–10 | p. 108–110 | p. 342–343 | p. 10–11 | p. 1115–1117 | p. 65–67 | p. 7–8 | p. 114–117 | p. 888–894 |
| 31 | Clarity of major themes | p. 326–329 | p. 78–81 | p. 379–382 | p. 5–14 | p. 3–6 | p. 102–108 | p. 338–342 | p. 6–10 | p. 1107–1115 | p. 60–64 | p. 3 | p. 106–114 | p. 880–888 |
| 32 | Clarity of minor themes | p. 3–6 | p. 338–342 | p. 105–106 | p. 880–888 | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity | 6/8 (75%) | 0/8 (0%) | 0/8 (0%) | 3/8 | 4/8 | 0/8 | 4/8 | 0/8 | 2/8 | 4/8 | 7/8 | 5/8 | 1/8 | |
| Domain 2: Study design | 10/15 (67%) | 9/15 (60%) | 7/15 (47%) | 12/15 (80%) | 12/15 (80%) | 9/15 | 9/15 | 7/15 | 9/15 | 10/15 | 11/15 | 9/15 | 9/15 | |
| Domain 3: Analysis and findings | 6/9 (67%) | 4/9 | 4/9 (44%) | 6/9 | 8/9 (89%) | 5/9 | 8/9 | 6/9 | 4/9 | 4/9 | 6/9 | 6/9 | 6/9 | |
| Total | 22/32 (69%) | 13/32 (41%) | 11/32 (34%) | 21/32 (66%) | 24/32 (75%) | 14/32 | 21/32 | 13/32 | 15/32 | 18/32 | 24/32 | 20/32 | 16/32 | |
1 Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) [13]. 2 In this table, “p.” refers to page numbers.