Suppr超能文献

告诫医疗保健专业人员。

Cautioning Health-Care Professionals.

作者信息

Stroebe Margaret, Schut Henk, Boerner Kathrin

机构信息

1 Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

2 Department of Clinical Psychology & Experimental Psychopathology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Omega (Westport). 2017 Mar;74(4):455-473. doi: 10.1177/0030222817691870.

Abstract

Science and practice seem deeply stuck in the so-called stage theory of grief. Health-care professionals continue to "prescribe" stages. Basically, this perspective endorses the idea that bereaved people go through a set pattern of specific reactions over time following the death of a loved one. It has frequently been interpreted prescriptively, as a progression that bereaved persons must follow in order to adapt to loss. It is of paramount importance to assess stage theory, not least in view of the current status of the maladaptive "persistent complex bereavement-related disorder" as a category for further research in DSM-5. We therefore review the status and value of this approach. It has remained hugely influential among researchers as well as practitioners across recent decades, but there has also been forceful opposition. Major concerns include the absence of sound empirical evidence, conceptual clarity, or explanatory potential. It lacks practical utility for the design or allocation of treatment services, and it does not help identification of those at risk or with complications in the grieving process. Most disturbingly, the expectation that bereaved persons will, even should, go through stages of grieving can be harmful to those who do not. Following such lines of reasoning, we argue that stage theory should be discarded by all concerned (including bereaved persons themselves); at best, it should be relegated to the realms of history. There are alternative models that better represent grieving processes. We develop guidelines to enhance such a move beyond the stage approach in both theory and practice.

摘要

科学与实践似乎深陷于所谓的悲伤阶段理论之中。医疗保健专业人员仍在继续“规定”这些阶段。从根本上说,这种观点支持这样一种理念,即失去亲人后,丧亲者会随着时间推移经历一系列特定反应的固定模式。它经常被从规范性角度进行解读,被视为丧亲者为适应丧失而必须经历的一个过程。评估阶段理论至关重要,尤其是考虑到适应不良的“持续性复杂丧亲相关障碍”在《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM - 5)中作为一个有待进一步研究的类别这一现状。因此,我们审视这种方法的现状和价值。近几十年来,它在研究人员和从业者中一直极具影响力,但也存在强烈反对意见。主要担忧包括缺乏可靠的实证证据、概念清晰度或解释力。它在治疗服务的设计或分配方面缺乏实际效用,也无助于识别那些在悲伤过程中有风险或出现并发症的人。最令人不安的是,认为丧亲者将会、甚至应该经历悲伤阶段的这种预期,可能会对那些未经历这些阶段的人造成伤害。基于这样的推理思路,我们认为所有相关方(包括丧亲者自身)都应摒弃阶段理论;充其量,它应被归入历史范畴。还有其他一些模型能更好地呈现悲伤过程。我们制定指导方针,以在理论和实践两方面推动超越阶段方法的转变。

相似文献

1
Cautioning Health-Care Professionals.告诫医疗保健专业人员。
Omega (Westport). 2017 Mar;74(4):455-473. doi: 10.1177/0030222817691870.
5
The Stubborn Persistence of Grief Stage Theory.悲伤阶段理论的顽固存在。
Omega (Westport). 2023 Jun 13:302228231184290. doi: 10.1177/00302228231184290.
7
The Stubborn Persistence of Grief Stage Theory.悲伤阶段理论的顽固延续
Omega (Westport). 2025 Aug;91(3):1140-1154. doi: 10.1177/00302228221149801. Epub 2023 Sep 4.

引用本文的文献

2
Grief and grief support needs in Canada: A mixed methods protocol.加拿大的悲伤情绪与悲伤支持需求:一项混合方法研究方案。
Palliat Care Soc Pract. 2025 May 9;19:26323524251334180. doi: 10.1177/26323524251334180. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

2
No protocol for grief.没有悲伤的规范。
Lancet. 2015 Aug 29;386(9996):848-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00053-7.
3
Clinical practice. Complicated grief.临床实践。复杂性哀伤。
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 8;372(2):153-60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp1315618.
7
The stage theory of grief.悲伤阶段理论。
JAMA. 2007 Jun 27;297(24):2692-3; author reply 2693-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.24.2692-b.
9
An empirical examination of the stage theory of grief.悲伤阶段理论的实证检验。
JAMA. 2007 Feb 21;297(7):716-23. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.7.716.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验