| Literature DB >> 35341382 |
Zhihong Yu1, Jinjun Liang2, Liping Guo3, Lirui Jiang4, Jian-Ying Wang5, Moli Ke5, Liao Shen6, Ningning Zhou6, Xinxian Liu7.
Abstract
Wuhan was the first large city where the initial breakout of COVID-19 took numerous lives. A group of social workers and mental health specialists coordinated the "Be Together Program" (BTP), a psychosocial grief intervention program to help a group of Wuhan COVID-19 bereaved people. Under the Dual-process model framework, BTP used the internet and social media as the main tools, combined with group and individual intervention. Additionally, it employed a "Supermarket Mode" with abundant intervention themes and approaches for BTP participants to choose according to their special needs. Additionally, Chinese cultural elements are integrated into the program. At the end of the program, the grief scores of participants in the qualified sample reduced significantly, and the prevalence of the potential Prolonged Grief Disorder diagnosis reduced from 75% to 12%. The study also found that the BTP was especially effective for those who had high levels of grief reaction.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; be together program; dual process model; grief intervention; traumatic grief; “Supermarket Mode”
Year: 2022 PMID: 35341382 PMCID: PMC8958304 DOI: 10.1177/00302228221083067
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Omega (Westport) ISSN: 0030-2228
Demographic and Sample Characteristics.
| Total sample ( | Participants who completed three-time points of data collection ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Mean age, years (SE) | 45.64 (12.07) | 43.72 (11.04) |
| Gender, | ||
| Female | 35 (83.3%) | 20 (80.0%) |
| Male | 7 (16.7%) | 5 (20.0%) |
| Education, | ||
| Below high school | 9 (21.4%) | 4 (16.0%) |
| High school | 8 (19.0%) | 4 (16.0%) |
| Above high school | 25 (59.5%) | 17 (68.0%) |
| Marital status, | ||
| Single | 7 (16.7%) | 5 (20.0%) |
| Married | 20 (47.6%) | 13 (52.0%) |
| Divorced | 1 (2.4%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Widowed (losing husband) | 13 (31.0%) | 7 (28.0%) |
| Widowed (losing wife) | 1 (2.4%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| COVID-19 status, | ||
| Not confirmed as transmitted | 20 (47.6%) | 8 (32.0%) |
| COVID-19 rehabilitation | 22 (52.4%) | 17 (68.0%) |
| Religious, | ||
| Yes | 8 (19.0%) | 5 (20.0%) |
| No | 34 (81.0%) | 20 (80.0%) |
| Mean age of the deceased | 62.74 (14.35) | 64.04 (10.40) |
| Bereavement length, month, | 6.17 (0.70) | 6.04 (0.74) |
| Relationship with the deceased | ||
| Parent | 25 (59.5%) | 16 (64.0%) |
| Spouse | 13 (31.0%) | 7 (28.0%) |
| Sibling | 1 (2.4%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Child | 1 (2.4%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Parent-in-law | 2 (4.8%) | 2 (8.0%) |
Intervention Themes and Approaches.
| Item | Loss-oriented intervention | Recovery-oriented intervention |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | RO1 Financial support (cash and milk powder) | |
| 3 | RO2 online therapeutical mindfulness lessons (5 times) and yoga classes (8 times) | |
| 4 | RO3 Food and life (online 11 times) | |
| 5 | RO4 dancing therapy (online 8 times and 1 in the park) | |
| 6 | RO5 Preserve health lectures (online 38 times) | |
| 7 | RO6 offline gathering: “Find the value of life: nature, food and dancing” (9 times) | |
| 8 | ½ LO1 Memory ceremony on the zhongyuan festival (online) | ½ RO7 Memory ceremony on the zhongyuan festival (online) |
| 9 | ½ LO2 write the child a letter on christmas eve (in WeChat group) | ½ RO8 write the child a letter on christmas eve (in WeChat group) |
| 10 | ½ LO3 how to cope with the new year (WeChat group) | ½ RO9 how to cope with the new year (WeChat group) |
| 11 | ½ LO4 heart healing reading (25 times in WeChat group) | ½ RO10 heart-healing reading (25 times in WeChat group) |
| 12 |
Mean, SEs, and Effect Sizes for the Intervention Analysis.
| According to ICG scores | According to the prevalence of potential PGD diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline (T1) (mean [SE]) | 41.92 (4.15) | 12 (48.0%) |
| Medium assessment (T2) (mean [SE]) | 38.72 (4.78) | 11 (44.0%) |
| Postintervention (T3) (mean [SE]) | 23.48 (3.60) | 3 (12.5%) |
| Z score for T1-T3 change | 3.91 ( | 3.000 ( |
| Effect-size (r) for T1-T3 change | 0.78 | 0.60 |
| Z score for T1-T2 change | 1.42 ( | .58 ( |
| Effect-size (r) for T1-T2 change | 0.28 | 0.11 |
| Z score for T2-T3 change | 3.55 ( | 2.83 ( |
| Effect-size (r) for T2-T3 change | 0.71 | 0.56 |
Note. ICG = Inventory of Complicated Grief; PGD = Prolonged Grief Disorder.
ICG Mean, SEs, and Effect Sizes for the PGD and Non-PGD Groups.
| PGD ( | Non-PGD ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline (T1) (mean [SE]) | 60.25 (2.61) | 25.00 (3.27) |
| Medium assessment (mean [SE]) | 54.25 (5.37) | 24.38 (5.27) |
| Post-intervention (T3) (mean [SE]) | 32.25 (5.66) | 15.38 (3.36) |
| Z score for T1-T3 change | 2.85 ( | 2.70 ( |
| Effect-size (r) for T1-T3 change | 0.57 | 0.54 |
| Z score for T1-T2 change | 0.66 ( | 1.16 ( |
| Effect-size (r) for T1-T2 change | 0.13 | 0.23 |
| Z score for T2-T3 change | 2.98 ( | 1.75 ( |
| Effect-size (r) for T2-T3 change | 0.59 | 0.35 |
Note. ICG = Inventory of Complicated Grief; PGD = Prolonged Grief Disorder.