Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42635297

Effectiveness of grief interventions in underrepresented regions: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis.

Abstract

Background: Most evidence on grief and bereavement interventions originates from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) populations, raising concerns about the generalizability and cultural relevance of existing findings in diverse global contexts. Individuals confronted with the death of a close person, particularly in cases of sudden or potentially traumatic loss, may be at increased risk of adverse psychological and physical health outcomes, highlighting the importance of effective interventions. This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of grief interventions in underrepresented regions.Method: A systematic search of Web of Science, APA PsycInfo, and Scopus, supplemented by manual reference checks, identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) targeting bereaved individuals in underrepresented regions. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate overall and subgroup effects based on control type, loss type, and intervention characteristics.Results: Fourteen RCTs comprising 1122 participants were included. Grief interventions demonstrated a significant moderate-to-large effect compared to control conditions (SMD = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.01, -0.47]). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I² = 77%). No significant subgroup differences were identified.Conclusion: Grief interventions show promising effectiveness across diverse cultural and geographical contexts. However, the limited and heterogeneous evidence base highlights the need for more high-quality RCTs and for the development of culturally sensitive and contextually grounded approaches to mental health care in underrepresented regions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Chenchen Lin, Wenli Qian, Eva-Maria Stelzer, Huy Hoang Le, Jianping Wang, Paul A Boelen, Clare Killikelly. 2026-08-24. Effectiveness of grief interventions in underrepresented regions: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2026.2712026

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Relationship between menopausal hormone therapy and incidence risk of breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is widely prescribed for alleviating menopausal symptoms. Prior studies have mainly focused on individual hormone therapy formulations. This meta-analysis comprehensively synthesized evidence across various regimens to systematically evaluate the association between MHT and breast cancer risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception through August 2024. Eligible studies examining breast cancer risk following MHT were independently screened and assessed by two reviewers. The review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included. The random-effects model showed a significant but heterogeneous overall association (OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.09-1.22; I&#xb2; = 92.4%). Subgroup analysis identified hormone type, use status, and region as key determinants (P for interaction < 0.001). Stratification by hormone type resolved much of the heterogeneity, revealing risk confined to estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT; OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.26-1.64), while estrogen-only therapy (ET) showed no overall association (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.91-1.10). Study type, region, and sample size were significant effect modifiers. For ET, randomized controlled trials demonstrated a protective effect (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.70-0.87), contrasting with neutral findings from observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: MHT is associated with a modest but significant increase in breast cancer risk, primarily driven by EPT. This risk was not observed with ET in observational studies, though trials suggested a protective effect. Crucially, the association shows marked geographical heterogeneity, indicating risk is modified by regimen and regional factors.

Humans

Comparison of Keverprazan-based versus esomeprazole-based dual therapy for initial treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Keverprazan offers a new perspective for Helicobacter pylori eradication. This study compared 14-day keverprazan-amoxicillin therapy with esomeprazole-amoxicillin therapy to explore a superior treatment strategy. METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in adult patients with treatment-naive H. pylori infection. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 14-day of KA therapy (Keverprazan 20&#x2009;mg b.i.d plus amoxicillin 1&#x2009;g t.i.d) or 14-day of EA therapy (Esomeprazole 40&#x2009;mg b.i.d plus amoxicillin 1&#x2009;g t.i.d). The primary outcome was the H. pylori eradication rate. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of adverse events and patient adherence. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients were enrolled in the study. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the eradication rates for the 14-day KA group and the 14-day EA group were 87.9% and 80.3%, respectively (p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.092); in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis, the eradication rates were 92.1% and 86.2%, respectively (p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.135); and in the per-protocol (PP) analysis, the eradication rates were 93.5% and 88.3%, respectively (p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.155). Non-inferiority was confirmed between the two groups (all p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). Adverse events and patient adherence were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: For treatment-naive H. pylori infection, the 14-day KA therapy is non-inferior to EA therapy. Given its good tolerability, pharmacogenomic independence, and potent acid suppression, KA is a rational first-line alternative to EA in the Chinese population.

Humans

Efficacy and safety of Ruxolitinib-based combination therapy in the patients with Myelofibrosis (MF): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm. Although Ruxolitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, remains the cornerstone of MF treatment, it does not reverse disease progression, and resistance frequently emerges. These limitations have prompted investigation into combination therapies targeting pathways beyond the JAK-STAT axis. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Ruxolitinib-based combination therapies in patients with MF. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of databases for studies published through August 1, 2025. Thirteen distinct Ruxolitinib-based combination regimens were included. Primary efficacy endpoints were &#x2265;35% spleen volume reduction at 24&#x2009;weeks (SVR35) and &#x2265;50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS50). Safety endpoints focused on the incidence of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and anemia. Subgroup analyses were performed based on prior JAK inhibitor exposure and therapeutic mechanism of action. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies comprising 1,088 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among JAK inhibitor-na&#xef;ve patients, the combination of Ruxolitinib with Selinexor demonstrated the highest efficacy (SVR35: 92%; TSS50: 78%), followed by Ruxolitinib plus BMS-986158 (SVR35: 90%). For patients with prior JAK inhibitor exposure, Ruxolitinib plus Siremadlin (SVR35: 45%) showed notable activity. CONCLUSION: For JAK inhibitor-na&#xef;ve patients, Ruxolitinib-based combination regimens demonstrated satisfactory clinical responses and the potential for meaningful disease control. For patients with prior JAK inhibitor exposure, the addition of combination therapy drugs may further enhance the efficacy. Personalized treatment selection remains essential, as therapeutic efficacy is significantly influenced by prior JAK inhibitor exposure.

Humans