Search

Background: When traumatic events and losses intersect in the form of traumatic loss, these events can trigger both posttraumatic stress disorder and pathological grief. Objective: This systematic review investigates which characteristics differentiate between the development of the respective disorders or are associated with comorbidity. Method: A systematic literature search using Medline, PubMed, APA PsycInfo and Web of Science yielded 46 studies which met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, PTSD was assessed using 17 and pathological grief using 16 different validated instruments. In the quality assessment, 12 studies were classified as average, 30 as above average, and 4 as excellent. The investigated risk factors were categorized into 19 superordinate clusters and processed using narrative synthesis. Results: The relationship to the deceased, mental health issues, and religious beliefs seem to be associated specifically with pathological grief symptoms compared to PTSD symptoms. Social support and social emotions emerged as significant correlates and potential risk factors for both PTSD and pathological grief. Included studies had mainly cross-sectional designs. Conclusions: Differentiating factors between pathological grief and PTSD appear to exist. The results should be considered within the limitations of the heterogeneity of the included studies and the research field. There is a lack of studies (1) using a longitudinal study design, (2) starting data collection early following the traumatic loss, (3) using standardized, up-to-date measurement instruments and (4) including comorbidity in their analyses. Further research is urgently needed for more accurate (acute) screenings, prognoses, and interventions following traumatic loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Literature points towards the potential benefits of the application of Eye Movement and Desensitization Processing (EMDR)-therapy for patients in the medical setting, with cancer and pain being among the domains it is applied to. The field of applying EMDR-therapy for patients treated in the medical setting has evolved to such an extent that it may be challenging to get a comprehensive overview. Objective: This systematic literature review aims to evaluate the use and effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in patients treated in the medical setting. Methods: We performed a literature search following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if the effectiveness of EMDR-therapy was assessed in adult patients treated in a medical setting. Excluded were patients exclusively suffering from a mental health disorder, without somatic comorbidity. A risk of bias analysis was performed. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022325238). Results: Eighty-seven studies, of which 26 (pilot)-RCTs were included and categorized in 14 medical domains. Additionally, three studies focusing on persistent physical complaints were included. Most evidence exists for its application in the fields of oncology, pain, and neurology. The overall appraisal of these studies showed at least moderate to high risks of bias. EMDR demonstrated effectiveness in reducing symptoms in 85 out of 87 studies. Notably, the occurrence of adverse events was rarely mentioned. Conclusions: Overall, outcomes seem to show beneficial effects of EMDR on reducing psychological and physical symptoms in patients treated in a medical setting. Due to the heterogeneity of reported outcomes, effect sizes could not be pooled. Due to the high risk of bias of the included studies, our results should be interpreted with caution and further controlled high-quality research is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Journal of Social Work is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)