Skip to content

Health & Balance

Font Size


    The following information concerns treatment of grief after the death of a loved one, not necessarily death as a result of cancer.

    Normal or Common Grief Reactions

    Some controversy continues about whether normal or common grief reactions require any intervention by medical or mental health professionals. Researchers disagree about whether credible evidence on the efficacy of grief counseling exists.[1,2,3,4] Most bereaved persons experience painful and often very distressing emotional, physical, and social reactions; however, most researchers agree that most bereaved persons adapt over time, typically within the first 6 months to 2 years. Thus, the question is whether it is wise to devote professional time to interventions for normal grief when resources are limited and the need for accountability is great.

    One approach is to use a spectrum of interventions, from prevention to treatment to long-term maintenance care.[5] In this model, preventive interventions could be one of the following:

    • Universal and targeted to all persons in the population.
    • Selective and targeted to persons with known risk factors.
    • Indicated for persons experiencing significant symptom distress.

    In contrast, formal treatment of bereaved persons would be reserved for those identified as experiencing complicated or pathologic grief reactions. Finally, longer-term maintenance care may be warranted for persons experiencing chronic grief reactions.

    Another approach has focused on families.[6,7] This brief, time-limited approach (four to eight 90-minute sessions over 9 to 18 months) identifies families at increased risk for poor outcomes and intervenes, with emphasis on improving family cohesion, communication, and conflict resolution. Adaptive coping, with efforts to strengthen family solidarity, and frequent affirmation of family strengths are emphasized.

    In a randomized controlled trial,[8][Level of evidence: I] 183 (71%) of 257 families screened were identified as at risk for poor outcomes; 81 (44%) of these at-risk families participated in the trial. Family functioning was classified into one of five groups:

    • Two functional groups:
      • Supportive families.
      • Conflict-resolving families.
    • Three potentially dysfunctional groups:
      • Sullen families.
      • Hostile families.
      • Intermediate-functioning families.

    Participants classified as hostile (n = 19), sullen (n = 21), or intermediate (n = 41) were randomly assigned to either the treatment group or a no-treatment control group.[8]


      Today on WebMD

      woman in yoga class
      6 health benefits of yoga.
      beautiful girl lying down of grass
      10 relaxation techniques to try.
      mature woman with glass of water
      Do we really need to drink 8 glasses of water a day?
      coffee beans in shape of mug
      Get the facts.
      man reading sticky notes
      worried kid
      Hungover man
      Woman opening window
      Woman yawning
      Health Check
      Happy and sad faces
      brain food
      laughing family