Forte Amanda L, Hill Malinda, Pazder Rachel, Feudtner Chris
Pediatric Advanced Care Team and Pediatric Generalist Research Group, Division of General Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, PA, USA.
BMC Palliat Care. 2004 Jul 26;3(1):3. doi: 10.1186/1472-684X-3-3.
Despite abundant bereavement care options, consensus is lacking regarding optimal care for bereaved persons. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, EBMR, and other databases using the terms (bereaved or bereavement) and (grief) combined with (intervention or support or counselling or therapy) and (controlled or trial or design). We also searched citations in published reports for additional pertinent studies. Eligible studies had to evaluate whether the treatment of bereaved individuals reduced bereavement-related symptoms. Data from the studies was abstracted independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: 74 eligible studies evaluated diverse treatments designed to ameliorate a variety of outcomes associated with bereavement. Among studies utilizing a structured therapeutic relationship, eight featured pharmacotherapy (4 included an untreated control group), 39 featured support groups or counselling (23 included a control group), and 25 studies featured cognitive-behavioural, psychodynamic, psychoanalytical, or interpersonal therapies (17 included a control group). Seven studies employed systems-oriented interventions (all had control groups). Other than efficacy for pharmacological treatment of bereavement-related depression, we could identify no consistent pattern of treatment benefit among the other forms of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Due to a paucity of reports on controlled clinical trails, no rigorous evidence-based recommendation regarding the treatment of bereaved persons is currently possible except for the pharmacologic treatment of depression. We postulate the following five factors as impeding scientific progress regarding bereavement care interventions: 1) excessive theoretical heterogeneity, 2) stultifying between-study variation, 3) inadequate reporting of intervention procedures, 4) few published replication studies, and 5) methodological flaws of study design.
尽管有丰富的丧亲之痛护理选择,但对于丧亲者的最佳护理仍缺乏共识。方法:我们进行了一项系统综述,使用术语(丧亲者或丧亲之痛)和(悲伤),并结合(干预或支持或咨询或治疗)以及(对照或试验或设计)检索了MEDLINE、PsychINFO、CINAHL、EBMR和其他数据库。我们还在已发表报告的参考文献中搜索其他相关研究。符合条件的研究必须评估对丧亲者的治疗是否能减轻与丧亲相关的症状。研究数据由两名评审员独立提取。结果:74项符合条件的研究评估了旨在改善与丧亲相关的各种结果的不同治疗方法。在采用结构化治疗关系的研究中,8项采用药物治疗(4项包括未治疗的对照组),39项采用支持小组或咨询(23项包括对照组),25项研究采用认知行为、心理动力、精神分析或人际治疗(17项包括对照组)。7项研究采用以系统为导向的干预措施(均有对照组)。除了药物治疗与丧亲相关抑郁症的疗效外,我们在其他形式的干预措施中未发现一致的治疗益处模式。结论:由于关于对照临床试验的报告较少,目前除了抑郁症的药物治疗外,无法就丧亲者的治疗提出严格的循证建议。我们假定以下五个因素阻碍了丧亲护理干预措施的科学进展:1)理论异质性过大;2)研究间差异令人窒息;3)干预程序报告不足;4)已发表的重复研究较少;5)研究设计的方法学缺陷。