| Literature DB >> 36078425 |
Diego De Leo1,2,3, Annalisa Guarino3, Benedetta Congregalli3, Josephine Zammarrelli3, Anna Valle4, Stefano Paoloni4, Sabrina Cipolletta5.
Abstract
(1) Background: The loss of a significant person can be especially traumatic when death comes without warning and is due to causes such as suicide, murder and accidents. The way an individual is informed about the loss can affect the way of adapting to the loss and the quality of life of survivors. Communication modalities of the notifier may deeply influence the bereavement process. Aim: The present investigation aimed to explore the experience of those who received communication of such a type of death by a professional figure. (2) Method: Snowball sampling was used to recruit the participants to this qualitative study. Social networks, word of mouth and researchers' acquaintances were used, including clients of the NGO De Leo Fund. A total of 52 Italian people (eight males and forty four females, mean age = 49.44; SD = 14.23) who received notification of the death of a loved one by police officers or by health professionals participated in the study. Deaths involved cases of suicide, murder, road accident and mountain accident. (3)Entities:
Keywords: death communication; homicide; notifiers; road accident; suicide; survivors; traumatic death
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078425 PMCID: PMC9518459 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710709
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
The ad hoc questionnaire.
Age, degree of kinship, time since death, circumstances of death, who made the communication, lieu where the communication took place, and medium used for communication.
|
| Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| 21–30 | 9 | 17.3% |
| 31–40 | 5 | 9.6% |
| 41–50 | 11 | 21.2% |
| 51–60 | 17 | 32.7% |
| 61–70 | 10 | 19.2% |
|
| ||
| Father/Mother | 19 | 36.5% |
| Son/daughter | 9 | 17.3% |
| Brother/Sister | 12 | 23.1% |
| Husband/Wife | 7 | 13.5% |
| Partner | 1 | 1.9% |
| Daughter-in-law | 2 | 3.8% |
| Friend | 2 | 3.8% |
|
| ||
| 41–31 | 2 | 3.8% |
| 30–21 | 1 | 1.9% |
| 20–11 | 5 | 9.6% |
| 10–6 | 16 | 30.8% |
| 5–1 | 24 | 46.2% |
|
| ||
| Homicide | 1 | 1.9% |
| Suicide | 28 | 53.8% |
| Road accident | 22 | 42.3% |
| Accident in the mountains | 1 | 1.9% |
|
| ||
| Police officer | 14 | 26.9% |
| Carabiniere | 16 | 30.8% |
| Medical doctor | 11 | 21.2% |
| Nurse | 5 | 9.6% |
| Ambulance operator | 2 | 3.8% |
| Doctor and nurse | 4 | 7.7% |
|
| ||
| Law enforcement office | 9 | 17.3% |
| House | 22 | 42.3% |
| Hospital | 14 | 26.9% |
| Train | 1 | 1.9% |
| Car | 1 | 1.9% |
| Ambulance | 1 | 1.9% |
| Road | 4 | 7.7% |
|
| ||
| In person | 34 | 65.4% |
| In person, after anticipatory call | 7 | 13.5% |
| On the phone | 11 | 21.2% |
Themes, sub-themes, codes and frequencies observed in the sample.
| Sub-Themes | Codes | Frequencies | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Verbal aspects of communication | Clarity of presentation | 26 |
| Generic information | 21 | ||
| Non verbal aspects of communication | News intuition | 8 | |
| Notifier empathy | 5 | ||
| Notifier vicinity | 13 | ||
| Attentive and sensitive notifier | 11 | ||
| Coldness of notifier | 14 | ||
| Embarrassed notifier | 8 | ||
| Unattentive and unpleasant notifier | 4 | ||
|
| Reactions to the news | Shock | 16 |
| Sense of emptiness | 10 | ||
| Disbelief | 16 | ||
| Estrangement | 10 | ||
| Emotional Trauma | 5 | ||
| Pain | 35 | ||
| Despear | 15 | ||
| Feeling of dying | 2 | ||
| Death wishes | 4 | ||
| Giving up | 4 | ||
| Lack of the person | 5 | ||
| Body reactions | 6 | ||
| Guilt feelings | 1 | ||
| Stiffening | 5 | ||
| Indescribable emotions | 8 | ||
| Reactions towards the notifier | Anger | 10 | |
| Attempts to deny | 6 | ||
| Identification with the notifier | 2 | ||
| Peacefulness | 4 | ||
| Gratitude | 8 | ||
| Detachment | 7 | ||
| Silence | 4 | ||
| Post-communication actions | Collaboration with notifier | 10 | |
| Body recognition | 14 | ||
| Organ donation | 8 | ||
| Farewell | 12 | ||
| Return to the scene of the accident | 3 | ||
| Return home | 4 | ||
| Funeral organization | 2 | ||
| Communication to friends and relatives | 10 | ||
|
| Seeking support | Formal support | 13 |
| Informal support | 10 | ||
| Received support | Concret help | 5 | |
| Moral comfort | 18 | ||
| Lack support | Practical | 3 | |
| Emotional | 4 | ||
| Institutional | 2 | ||
|
| Relying on yourself | Inner strength | 2 |
| Family responsibility | 4 | ||
| Retelling | Writing | 5 | |
| Partecipation to research on the topic | 3 | ||
| Resignification | Reorganization of everyday life | 5 | |
| Search for explanations | 3 | ||
| Loss as a learning | 8 |
Figure 1Roadmap of interactions among the main themes.