4.2 Article

Suicide Bereavement and Postvention in Major Suicidology Journals Lessons Learned for the Future of Postvention

出版社

HOGREFE & HUBER PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1027/0227-5910/a000269

关键词

bereavement; review; suicide survivors; postvention; suicidology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Since the seminal publications of Shneidman (1969) and Cain (1972), suicide bereavement and postvention have attracted increasing research interest. Aims: To examine the topics of suicide bereavement and postvention in the core international suicidology journals, since their inception until mid-2013, in order to reveal the number of postvention articles throughout the years, their geographic distribution, and the topics of suicide bereavement and postvention that have been published. Method: The online databases of four journals (Crisis, The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention; Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior [SLTB]; Archives of Suicide Research; and Suicidology Online) as well as the tables of content of all issues were searched. The number of articles and the countries of origin were quantified, and articles were categorized according to their content. Results: The search identified 144 postvention articles, published during the past 40 years, almost exclusively in two journals (Crisis and SLTB). The majority of articles were (co-)authored by authors from Anglo-Saxon, Western countries. Articles were categorized in three groups: characteristics of suicide bereavement (n = 73), postvention programs (n = 66), and definition/theory and epidemiology of survivors (n = 5). Conclusion: Articles on suicide bereavement and postvention have been published mostly in two suicidology journals, albeit in modest numbers, and from a limited number of mostly Western countries. Our understanding of suicide bereavement and the provision of survivor support might benefit from the development of consensual definitions and from studies in other parts of the world.

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

4.2
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