Telephone versus in-person intake assessment for bereavement intervention: Does efficiency come at a cost?

Abstract

Standardized, evidence-based risk assessment is an important component in providing effective bereavement care. E-health intake assessments have been offered alongside or instead of in-person assessments, although evidence concerning the equivalence of assessment results is lacking. This article examines differences between a semistructured intake assessment for grief intervention conducted over the telephone (n = 330) and in-person (n = 115). Differences in scores and clinical implications were evaluated. Although composite assessment scores were lower in the telephone condition, further examination revealed this occurred in the semistructured assessment of risk of complications, not the structured grief symptom assessment. Implications for care provision are discussed.

Effectiveness of bereavement counselling through a community‐based organization: A naturalistic, controlled trial

“…Risk factors were assessed through a semistructured interview; symptoms of bereavement‐related distress were measured with a structured question set. A validation exercise for the IBACS demonstrated convergent validity with other instruments including the Inventory of Complicated Grief—Revised (ICG‐R; Prigerson & Jacobs, ; r = .82, p < .01) and cut‐off score convergence with CG “caseness” calculations using the ICG‐R (Newsom, Schut, Stroebe, Birrell, et al, ).…”

“…At baseline, an intake assessment was conducted by a purpose‐trained volunteer using the IBACS, a validated assessment instrument for bereavement‐related grief and risk factors (Newsom, Schut, Stroebe, Birrell, & Wilson, ; Newsom, Schut, Stroebe, Wilson, & Birrell, ). The minimum IBACS score was 0; the maximum was 55.…”

Facing a Loss in a Family. New Perspectives of Intervention

“…Even if the research on the bereavement has increased, only few studies have been focused on emerging approaches. We can mention, for example, the research conducted by Catherine Newsom, Henk Schut, Margaret Stroebeand John, Birrell & Stewart Wilson [16], "Tele- phone versus in-person intake assessment for bereavement intervention: Does efficiency come at a cost?". The research has taken into consideration standardized, evidence-based risk assessment as an important component in providing effective bereavement care.…”

Are in Person and Telephone Interviews Equivalent Modes of Administrating the CAT, the FACIT-FS and the SGRQ in People With COPD?

“…The telephone interview might have additional advantages in comparison to in person questionnaires, since it may save costs associated with the participants' transportation, enhance adherence due to the flexibility for scheduling the interview, or improve confidence to speak without having the physical presence of the interviewer ( 8 , 54 ). These advantages are important in the context of current and future pandemics, but also for researcher planning of observational studies and clinical trials, which may consider to collect some of the information using telephone interview.…”