Revising ruling discourses: The griefwork evidence-to-practice gap and the mental health workforce

Judith L.M. McCoyd; Erica Goldblatt Hyatt; Kerry Hennessy; Ayse Akincigil

doi:10.1080/07481187.2023.2171159

Revising ruling discourses: The griefwork evidence-to-practice gap and the mental health workforce

Judith L.M. McCoyd, Erica Goldblatt Hyatt, Kerry Hennessy, Ayse Akincigil

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’ pioneering work focused on dying, yet some clinicians persist in prescribing it as a path through grief. We surveyed 964 mental health clinicians who completed a five-section mixed methods survey: two sections assessed knowledge with multiple choice questions and a case study to assess clinicians’ knowledge-base and approach to grief/loss in practice. Analysis of four items related to Kübler-Ross’ model and 66/962 case studies indicates ongoing use of “stages” and Kübler-Ross’ model. Only 330 (34.2%) of the clinicians were deemed knowledgeable; 462 (47.9%) were questionable; and 172 (17.9%) were misinformed, continuing to use Kübler-Ross’ stage theory for grief.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1136-1145
Number of pages	10
Journal	Death Studies
Volume	47
Issue number	10
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2023.2171159
State	Published - 2023
Externally published	Yes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Clinical Psychology
Developmental and Educational Psychology
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Access to Document

10.1080/07481187.2023.2171159

Cite this

@article{fd44489020b4441cb244d6c2b49d679a,

title = "Revising ruling discourses: The griefwork evidence-to-practice gap and the mental health workforce",

abstract = "Elisabeth K{\"u}bler-Ross{\textquoteright} pioneering work focused on dying, yet some clinicians persist in prescribing it as a path through grief. We surveyed 964 mental health clinicians who completed a five-section mixed methods survey: two sections assessed knowledge with multiple choice questions and a case study to assess clinicians{\textquoteright} knowledge-base and approach to grief/loss in practice. Analysis of four items related to K{\"u}bler-Ross{\textquoteright} model and 66/962 case studies indicates ongoing use of “stages” and K{\"u}bler-Ross{\textquoteright} model. Only 330 (34.2%) of the clinicians were deemed knowledgeable; 462 (47.9%) were questionable; and 172 (17.9%) were misinformed, continuing to use K{\"u}bler-Ross{\textquoteright} stage theory for grief.",

author = "McCoyd, {Judith L.M.} and {Goldblatt Hyatt}, Erica and Kerry Hennessy and Ayse Akincigil",

note = "Funding Information: The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article. We appreciate the time taken by the respondents to reflectively answer our survey. We also are grateful for the Grounded Research in Practice project of the Rutgers School of Social Work that selected this project for in-kind support and provided the email listserv for the survey distribution. We also acknowledge Jeanne Koller{\textquoteright}s contributions to the preparation of this project. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.",

year = "2023",

doi = "10.1080/07481187.2023.2171159",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "47",

pages = "1136--1145",

journal = "Death Studies",

issn = "0748-1187",

publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",

number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Revising ruling discourses

T2 - The griefwork evidence-to-practice gap and the mental health workforce

AU - McCoyd, Judith L.M.

AU - Goldblatt Hyatt, Erica

AU - Hennessy, Kerry

AU - Akincigil, Ayse

N1 - Funding Information: The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article. We appreciate the time taken by the respondents to reflectively answer our survey. We also are grateful for the Grounded Research in Practice project of the Rutgers School of Social Work that selected this project for in-kind support and provided the email listserv for the survey distribution. We also acknowledge Jeanne Koller’s contributions to the preparation of this project. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’ pioneering work focused on dying, yet some clinicians persist in prescribing it as a path through grief. We surveyed 964 mental health clinicians who completed a five-section mixed methods survey: two sections assessed knowledge with multiple choice questions and a case study to assess clinicians’ knowledge-base and approach to grief/loss in practice. Analysis of four items related to Kübler-Ross’ model and 66/962 case studies indicates ongoing use of “stages” and Kübler-Ross’ model. Only 330 (34.2%) of the clinicians were deemed knowledgeable; 462 (47.9%) were questionable; and 172 (17.9%) were misinformed, continuing to use Kübler-Ross’ stage theory for grief.

AB - Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’ pioneering work focused on dying, yet some clinicians persist in prescribing it as a path through grief. We surveyed 964 mental health clinicians who completed a five-section mixed methods survey: two sections assessed knowledge with multiple choice questions and a case study to assess clinicians’ knowledge-base and approach to grief/loss in practice. Analysis of four items related to Kübler-Ross’ model and 66/962 case studies indicates ongoing use of “stages” and Kübler-Ross’ model. Only 330 (34.2%) of the clinicians were deemed knowledgeable; 462 (47.9%) were questionable; and 172 (17.9%) were misinformed, continuing to use Kübler-Ross’ stage theory for grief.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85147275307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85147275307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/07481187.2023.2171159

DO - 10.1080/07481187.2023.2171159

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85147275307

SN - 0748-1187

VL - 47

SP - 1136

EP - 1145

JO - Death Studies

JF - Death Studies

IS - 10

ER -

Revising ruling discourses: The griefwork evidence-to-practice gap and the mental health workforce

Abstract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this