Inter-rater reliability of the Bereavement Risk Assessment Tool

Rose, Caelin; Wainwright, Wendy; Downing, Michael; Lesperance, Mary

doi:10.1017/s1478951511000022

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar findings were reported by Breen (2011) in her study of the gaps between research and practice in grief counseling. The use of other non-CG measures, such as the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Bereavement Risk Assessment Tool (BRAT), or the Grief and Mourning Interview and Inventory (GAMS) were also noted (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996;Rose, Wainwright, Downing, & Lesperance, 2011;Rando, 1993). Most of the clinicians we contacted relied almost exclusively on their preexisting, sometimes decades-old training and clinical judgement, and reviewed the literature as their time permitted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complicated Grief in Canada: Exploring the Client and Professional Landscape

Thompson¹,

Whiteman²,

Loucks³

et al. 2017

Journal of Loss and Trauma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complicated grief (CG) is one of the central themes in bereavement research and advanced clinical practice today. Using a mixed-methods approach, we wanted to learn (a) what tools Canadian practitioners used to identify or diagnose CG and (b) what interventions or strategies they used to address CG. Sixty-three professionals responded to our survey. There were no straightforward answers to these questions: the stateof-the art of CG in Canada is, in fact, complicated. Practitioners used a wide assortment of tools and strategies with no consensus on any one approach or tool. Building a Canadian CG community of practice was recommended.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complicated Grief in Canada: Exploring the Client and Professional Landscape

Thompson¹,

Whiteman²,

Loucks³

et al. 2017

Journal of Loss and Trauma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, items verified by the literature as prominent risk factors were selected from pre-existing bereavement screening tools, including the GEM (Jordan et al, 2005) and those developed by Rose et al (2011) and Guldin et al (2011). Items were identified as being within three main categories of risk described above: background factors, illness/death-related factors , and bereavement-related factors (Burke & Neimeyer, 2012; Lobb et al, 2010).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinician-administered screening tools have not proven reliable (Rose et al, 2011; Kristjanson, 2006; Sealey, 2015b) and self-report bereavement risk assessments (Jordan et al, 2005; Guldin et al, 2011) have not been widely used or validated due to their burdensome length and limited clinical utility (Agnew et al, 2010). In addition, such measures have not been developed using systematically obtained expert feedback or respondent input.…”

Section: Need For Bereavement Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Bereavement Risk Inventory and Screening Questionnaire (BRISQ): Item generation and expert panel feedback

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Following the loss of a loved one to cancer, a significant subset of bereaved family members are at heightened risk for mental and physical health problems; however, often these family members “fall through the cracks” in the healthcare system. A brief, clinically useful self-report bereavement risk screening tool could facilitate more effective identification of family members in need of psychosocial support before and after a cancer loss. Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop and refine the Bereavement Risk Inventory and Screening Questionnaire (BRISQ), a self-report bereavement screening tool, and to assess its utility using feedback from bereavement experts. Methods Quantitative and qualitative feedback from a panel of 15 clinical and research experts in bereavement was obtained through an online survey to identify the most clinically useful items and understand expert opinion on bereavement screening. Results The qualitative and quantitative feedback was synthesized, resulting in a 22% reduction of the item pool. While there was a general consensus between experts on the most clinically useful risk factors for bereavement-related mental health challenges and on the utility of screening, they also offered feedback on language and formatting that guided substantial revisions to the BRISQ. Significance of Results These findings were used to refine the BRISQ in preparation for a second study to obtain family member feedback on the measure. By incorporating both expert and family member feedback, the intention is to create a screening tool that represents top clinical and research knowledge in bereavement in a way that effectively addresses barriers to care.

show abstract

“…It seems highly reasonable to react with distrust to poor health-care efforts in the very serious situation when a loved one is dying. Therefore, it is probably wise to explore and improve family members' understanding of the disease, interventions and termination of treatments [109][110][111][112] .…”

Section: Paper II Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%