Women who have experienced reproductive loss (i.e., miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion) evaluated the usefulness of a novel screening tool, Reproductive Grief Screen (RGS), to identify patients struggling with ongoing, complicated grief.
Methods
This mixed-methods study involved U.S. women who had experienced reproductive loss. Online data collection resulted in 27 interviews and 282 surveys completed. Perceptions of and preferences about RGS were thematically analyzed. Chi square analyses assessed relationships between demographics and tool preferences.
Results
RGS validated women's experiences with grief after reproductive loss. Women noted their providers may be unaware of their loss(es). Participants requested periodic screening using RGS beginning shortly after a loss (or during new patient intake) and occurring regularly (e.g., annually). Overall, women preferred completing RGS online before an appointment, though preferences varied by demographics (i.e., age, time since loss). Participants want providers to compassionately discuss RGS results with them and offer appropriate resources.
Conclusion
The RGS can help identify largely ignored grief after reproductive loss. INNOVATION: Findings from group and individual interviews and a survey of women who have coped with reproductive loss suggest that use of a brief RGS tool could reshape clinical practice to aid women who might be facing complicated grief. Moreover, women expressed clear preferences for how to implement use of the RGS in clinical contexts.
reproductive grief screening tool women perspectives, pregnancy loss grief no time limit screening instrument, Bute Brann Buskmiller reproductive grief qualitative, reproductive loss grief screening patient perspectives, miscarriage stillbirth infertility grief assessment, PEC Innovation reproductive grief screening 2023, pregnancy loss bereavement tool development validation, reproductive grief women experiences novel screening, perinatal loss psychological assessment patient voice
PMID 38076488 38076488 DOI 10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100244 10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100244 Bute et al. 2023, Bute 2023
Cite this article
Bute, J. J., Brann, M., Cara Buskmiller, & Fredenburg, M. (2023). "There's no time limit on grief:" Women's perspectives on a novel reproductive grief screening tool. PEC innovation, 3, 100244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100244
Bute JJ, Brann M, Cara Buskmiller, Fredenburg M. "There's no time limit on grief:" Women's perspectives on a novel reproductive grief screening tool. PEC Innov. 2023;3:100244. doi:10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100244
Bute, J. J., et al. ""There's no time limit on grief:" Women's perspectives on a novel reproductive grief screening tool." PEC innovation, vol. 3, 2023, pp. 100244.
Related articles
Measurement and Statistics · Instrument Development and Validation
Objective Complicated grief reactions follow some pregnancy outcomes, like miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death, infant death, selective reduction, or termination of pregnancy. Stigma can delay treatment and worsen outcomes. Screening tools such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale detect complicated grief poorly, and specific tools for prolonged or complicated grief after a reproductive loss are cumbersome. In this study, a five-item questionnaire to detect complicated grief after reproductive loss of any type was designed and preliminary validated. Methods A questionnaire patterned after the extensively validated Brief Grief Questionnaire (BGQ) was created by a group of physicians and lay advocates to employ non-traumatic but specific language related to grief after miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death, infant death, selective reduction, or termination of pregnancy. One hundred and forty women at a large academic center were recruited in person and via social media to validate the questionnaire with well-studied instruments for anxiety (7-item Panic Disorder Severity Scale, PDSS), trauma (22-item Impact of Events Scale), and reproductive grief and depressive symptoms (33-item Perinatal Grief Scale [PGS]). Results The response rate was 74.9%. Of the 140 participants, 18 (12.8%) experienced their loss during high-risk pregnancies, and 65 (46.4%) were recruited via social media. Seventy-one (51%) respondents had a score > 4, a positive screen for the BGQ. On average, women experienced their loss 2 years prior to participation (IQR 1-5 years). Cronbach's alpha was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.69-0.83). The goodness of fit indices of the model met Fornell and Larker criteria (RMSEA = 0.167, CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.06). The AVE was 0.42 and the CR 0.78. Conclusions This investigator-created screening tool is internally consistent and meets preliminary criteria for discriminant validity. This tool can be refined prior to testing for sensitivity and specificity in screening for complicated grief after a reproductive loss.
Hilgers TW, 2004·The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY·
Management of pregnancies complicated by lethal fetal anomalies is addressed within an ethical framework that provides perinatal palliative care, parental support, and medical management without recourse to induced abortion. The chapter outlines clinical protocols for continuing care that respect fetal life while attending to maternal physical and psychological wellbeing through delivery and bereavement.
To assess patient experiences using a Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Tool for fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) of family planning. The study employed a prospective crossover design to evaluate impact of the SDM tool compared to usual practice when discussing FABMs with patients. Patients completed preand post-office visit surveys and an online survey six months later. The primary outcomes evaluated the effect of the SDM tool on patient satisfaction and FABM continuity of use rates. There was no significant difference in likelihood of changing family planning methods immediately after the office visit; however, by six months a significantly larger proportion of patients had started or changed FABMs in the experimental group (52%, 34/66) compared to the control group (36%, 24/66) (p = 0.04). Significantly more patients who used the tool and changed their FABM after their visit reported increased satisfaction with their FABM compared to control (50% vs. 17%, p = 0.022). Use of the SDM tool increased persistent use of and satisfaction with chosen FABMs at six months. The novel SDM tool can enhance patients' understanding and facilitate the selection of a more suitable method leading to increased satisfaction.
To assess the impact of a Shared Decision-Making (SDM) tool for fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) of family planning. Clinicians familiar with at least one FABM were randomly invited to participate in a prospective cross-over study to compare usual practice to the use of the SDM tool when discussing FABMs with patients. Patients completed surveys preand post-office visit and six months later. The primary outcome explored the effect of online education on use of the SDM tool on clinicians' knowledge of FABMs. Of 278 clinicians contacted, 54% could not be reached, and 15% did not provide women's health services. The 26 clinicians enrolled were experienced, with more than half recommending FABMs for ≥10 years, and 73% recommending more than one FABM to patients. Knowledge scores significantly improved after online training and use of the SDM tool (baseline mean score = 9.54 (scale of 0-12); post-training mean score = 10.73, p < 0.002). Education about FABMs and training on use of the SDM tool improved knowledge scores even among an experienced cohort of clinicians. The novel SDM tool can better equip clinicians to meet the rising patient interest in FABMs.