4.3 Article

Pandemic Grief Scale: A screening tool for dysfunctional grief due to a COVID-19 loss

期刊

DEATH STUDIES
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 14-24

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2020.1853885

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed and evaluated the Pandemic Grief Scale (PGS) to identify dysfunctional grief associated with COVID-19 deaths. The PGS, based on a sample of 831 adults who lost someone to COVID-19, demonstrated good reliability and validity, and effectively measured grief related to COVID-19. It can accurately distinguish individuals with and without dysfunctional grief and has potential applications for clinical research and practice.
Millions of people are grieving the loss of someone who died of COVID-19. However, there have been no screening tools developed to identify individuals who may be suffering from dysfunctional grief during the pandemic. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop and evaluate the properties of the Pandemic Grief Scale (PGS), which is a brief mental health screener to identify probable cases of dysfunctional grief associated with a COVID-19 death. This 5-item scale, which was based on 831 adults who lost someone to COVID-19, demonstrated solid reliability (alpha s = 0.86), factorial validity (PCA and CFA support), and construct validity with strong correlations with suicidal ideation and substance use coping. The PGS measures COVID-19 grief equivalently across demographic groups, and discriminates well between persons with and without dysfunctional grief using an optimized cut score of >= 7 (87% sensitivity and 71% specificity). An alarming 66% of the sample scored in the clinical range. The PGS also demonstrates incremental validity by explaining 18% additional variance in functional impairment due to a COVID-19 loss beyond measures of depression and generalized anxiety. These results support the PGS as an efficient and valid screening tool for clinical research and practice during a pandemic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据