Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Campbell Systematic Reviews
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Campbell Systematic Reviews
PROTOCOL FOR EVIDENCE AND GAP MAP REPORT
Children and Young Persons Wellbeing
PROTOCOL: Bereavement Interventions for Children
and Adolescents: An Evidence and Gap Map of Primary
Studies and Systematic Reviews
Leonor Rodriguez | James Lyons | Amy Maloy | Ailsa O'Brien
School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Correspondence: Leonor Rodriguez (leonor.rodriguez@ed.ac.uk)
Received: 4 April 2024 | Revised: 28 January 2025 | Accepted: 10 February 2025
ABSTRACT
This is the protocol for a Campbell evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: (1) To identify and map all existing
primary studies and systematic reviews (published and unpublished) on bereavement interventions/programmes for children
and adolescents to create a live, searchable and publicly available EGM; (2) Provide a comprehensive descriptive overview
of psychosocial outcomes targeted by bereavement interventions for children and adolescents; (3) Determine the characteristics
of bereavement interventions targeted at children and adolescents, including age, location, duration, delivery, underlying
theories, evaluation and target death.
1 | Background
1.1 | The Problem, Condition or Issue
Loss, grief and bereavement are terms often used interchange-
ably; however, they are conceptually different. Bereavement
consists of having lost someone significant through death and
grief consists of the psychobiological reaction to the loss,
including the physical, cognitive and emotional responses that
occur during bereavement (Shear et al. 2013; Ing et al. 2022).
This loss may be associated with a person or a thing, not nec-
essarily due to the death of a person and often coexists with a
grieving process (Shear et al. 2013; Harris 2019).
The death of a loved one can be one of the most distressing and
traumatic life events for children and adolescents (Melhem 2011;
Alvis et al. 2023). Children and adolescents who experience a
significant death understand the death in line with their age and
stage of development (Speece and Brent 1984; Kaplow
et al. 2010). Developmental staging of children's and adolescents'
understanding of death does not explain how individual children
and adolescents experience death; however, it is important to
adopt a developmental approach when developing interven-
tions targeted at children and adolescents (McClatchey and
Wimmer 2018).
The number of children and adolescents experiencing a death
from cancer is not known precisely; however, the Child
Bereavement Network (Child Bereavement Network [CBN] 2024)
estimates that 127 children are bereaved of a parent each day in
the United Kingdom alone. According to Alvis et al. (2023), in
2015, the United Nations International Children's Emergency
Fund estimated that globally, nearly 140 million children under
the age of 18 had experienced the death of one or both parents.
Considering other significant deaths, it has been estimated that
62% of children and adolescents will have experienced a
bereavement by the age of 10 (Paul and Vaswani 2020). Therefore,
bereavement in children and adolescents is a prevalent and
important issue.
Bereavement can be a challenging experience for some children
and adolescents. Contextual and environmental factors can
impact children's and adolescents' reaction to grief. Some of
these identified factors are the circumstances of the death, time
since the loss, the relationship to the deceased, culture and
ethnicity and exposure to prior life events (Santos et al. 2021;
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
© 2025 The Author(s). Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration.
1of9Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2025; 21:e70027
https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70027
Harris 2019; Alvis et al. 2023). Research has identified that
bereaved children and adolescents may present with eating and
sleeping problems, enuresis, depression, anxiety, decreased
school attendance, substance misuse, increased likelihood of
self‐injury, separation anxiety disorder, conduct disorder and
substance abuse (Fauth et al. 2009; Ridley and Frache 2020; Ing
et al. 2022; Alvis et al. 2023; Woodward et al. 2023). The effects
can be lifelong and can affect educational attainment and social
development (Ridley and Frache 2020).
1.2 | The Intervention
Due to the prevalence and significant and long‐lasting effects of
bereavement on children and adolescents, effective bereave-
ment interventions are needed. Preventative interventions are
crucial, as these may reduce the risk of psychosocial issues
associated with unresolved grief (Ing et al. 2022). There are
examples of the diversity of interventions including web‐
(Zuelke et al. 2021), group‐(Pfeffer et al. 2002), family‐based
interventions (Sandler et al. 2013) and individualised inter-
ventions (Thienprayoon et al. 2015). The EGM is interested in
all types of interventions as long as these are targeted at the
bereaved child or adolescent. Heterogeneity is also found in
who delivers the interventions, including mental health pro-
fessionals, teachers, social workers, volunteers, among others
(Thienprayoon et al. 2015; Zuelke et al. 2021); therefore, this
information will also be captured.
Following previous systematic reviews in this area of research
(Ing et al. 2022), this EGM is focused on identifying the impact
of interventions on psychosocial outcomes in children and
adolescents. Some of the outcomes of interventions identified in
the literature are improved mood, reduced behavioural dis-
orders, improved well‐being and better relationships with sig-
nificant others (Yung‐Chi Chen and Panebianco 2018; Ing
et al. 2022). There is, however, an inconsistency around the
benefits of interventions across RCTs and non‐RCTs, due to
measurement limitations, study designs and small sample sizes
(Yung‐Chi Chen and Panebianco 2018; Ing et al. 2022). Benefits
also vary according to gender, age, developmental stage, type of
intervention, delivery method and the time between experien-
cing the bereavement and completing the intervention
(Rosner et al. 2010; Duncan 2020). A systematic review focused
on interventions available to adolescents and young adults
bereaved by familial cancer only identified that interventions
lack empirical evaluation using longitudinal and robust designs
(Ing et al. 2022). Interventions also lack a clear underpinning
theory to guide its development and application (Ing
et al. 2022), for example, CBT and family systems theory.
1.3 | Why Is It Important to Develop the
Evidence and Gap Map (EGM)?
It is estimated that the majority of children and adolescents will
adjust to bereavement without the need for an intervention;
however, about 20% of them may benefit from effective inter-
ventions to prevent lasting poor outcomes (Currier et al. 2007).
Adverse outcomes experienced by bereaved children and ado-
lescents include poverty, poor social outcomes, reduced
academic attainment and poorer mental and physical well‐
being (Aguirre et al. 2024). The impact of a significant
bereavement for children and adolescents can be very serious
and long‐lasting. For example, Vaswani (2014) found that over
90% of young offenders in the prison system had experienced at
least one bereavement, with two‐thirds of them having experi-
enced over four. Bereavement interventions can be beneficial
for children and young people (Ridley and Frache 2020), but
these benefits can also reduce societal and financial costs
associated with poor mental health and long‐term mental
health disorders such as prolonged grief disorders (Alvis
et al. 2023).
Bereavement interventions may be crucial in the lives of some
children and adolescents who struggle with bereavement and
grief. Despite this, there is a lack of a comprehensive and sys-
tematic tool that gathers the current existing evidence on
interventions targeted at children and adolescents. This EGM
will, therefore, provide a repository of the primary studies and
systematic reviews on bereavement interventions for children
and adolescents. The map will be created by using robust
search, retrieval and methodological approaches to minimise
potential sources of bias. It will be made publicly available and
will provide a visual presentation of the existing evidence on
bereavement interventions for children and adolescents.
The map will identify gaps in the evidence as well as highlight
areas in which evidence is highly concentrated. This publicly
available and visual resource can benefit (1) funders, who can
assess the areas where the evidence is concentrated and identify
the gaps in the knowledge, and target resources towards those
areas; (2) practitioners and policymakers can access the map
to see where evidence exists to inform policy and practice;
(3) researchers can reduce research waste and duplication
of research; and (4) members of the public can quickly access
information that may be of relevance to them, for example,
parents and families looking for suitable and evidence supports
for their bereaved children and adolescents.
The EGM will comply with the standard EGM framework as a
matrix. The rows will have the type of intervention/programme
(e.g., group intervention, camp, individual psychotherapy,
family therapy). The columns will contain the psychosocial
outcomes identified (e.g., well‐being, improved mood, reduced
stress, less depression, less anxiety). Additional information will
be included in the map, which will enable to filter the map by
mean age, region, delivery, type of death, underlying theory and
intervention design. The elements specified in the framework
will be coded into the EGM. These filters will be captured, as
the benefits of interventions vary according to gender, age,
developmental stage, type of intervention, delivery method and
the time between experiencing the bereavement and completing
the intervention (Rosner et al. 2010; Duncan 2020); therefore,
it is important to capture this information in this EGM.
The EGM will also have a specific purpose, which is to inform
the co‐creation of a mentoring, peer support intervention for
adolescents who have experienced parental cancer. This EGM is
part of the evidence that will support and inform adolescent
stakeholders in the co‐creation of their intervention. As this
EGM will help inform the co‐design of an intervention for
2of9 Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2025
adolescents, exploring the characteristics of existing interven-
tions is important to provide adolescent co‐creators a clear
understanding of the bereavement interventions landscape in
areas such as outcomes, types, age, region, delivery, type of
death, underlying theory and intervention design.
1.4 | Existing EGMs and/or Relevant Systematic
Reviews
To the authors' knowledge, there are no previous EGMs focused
on interventions target at children and adolescents. There are
several systematic reviews focused on different aspects of this
topic. No limit to the period of the searches was determined a
priori, as long as these were targeted at children and/or ado-
lescents and published in English or Spanish (Table 1).
Several ongoing reviews were also identified. Arruda‐Colli et al.
(2017)‘Introducing communication about dying, death, and
bereavement with children: a systematic review of children's
literature’. PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016042129. Pereira et al.
‘Early interventions following the death of a parent: a mixed
methods systematic review’. Wisker et al. ‘Facilitators and
barriers of community‐based interventions for childhood
bereavement: a systematic review and framework synthesis’.
Finally, Pirl et al. ‘Systematic review of bereavement interven-
tions for children whose parents died from cancer’. Due to the
ongoing nature of these reviews, it was not possible to deter-
mine how these differ from the proposed EGM.
Overall, this EGM will therefore have a broader scope in terms
of age and intervention types. It is important to notice that these
systematic reviews have a heterogeneous set of outcomes that
they are reporting on and this will have to be captured in
this EGM.
2 | Objectives
1. To identify and map all existing primary studies and sys-
tematic reviews (published and unpublished) on bereave-
ment interventions/programmes for children and adolescents
to create a live, searchable and publicly available EGM.
2. Provide a comprehensive descriptive overview of psycho-
social outcomes targeted by bereavement interventions for
children and adolescents.
3. Determine the characteristics of bereavement interven-
tions targeted at children and adolescents, including age,
location, duration, delivery, underlying theories, evalua-
tion and target death.
3 | Methods
EGMs are a tool to prioritise research needs and to support
evidence‐informed practice and policy decisions. The Campbell
Collaboration methodological guidelines for EGMs will be
adhered to (White et al. 2020) and the project will be conducted
according to the following six stages:
1. Scoping and development of the EGM framework. This
entails determining the primary dimensions, row (inter-
ventions) and column (outcomes) headings.
2. Systematic and comprehensive searches. Several relevant
databases will be searched using documented search
strings. Published and grey literature will be included. The
search strategy will be developed in conjunction with an
expert subject librarian and piloted.
3. Screening for eligibility (i.e., title, then abstract, then full
text). Results of the searchers will be double‐screened and
reported using a PRISMA diagram.
4. Data extraction. Will be carried out in duplicate. Basic
study characteristics, intervention categories, filters and
data required for quality appraisal will be extracted.
5. High‐level quality appraisal. Data required for AMSTAR 2
(systematic reviews) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias will be
used to evaluate the quality of randomised control studies.
6. Analysis according to the predefined inclusion/exclusion
criteria. These dimensions are determined in the EGM
framework. The rows will have the type of intervention/
programme (e.g., group intervention, camp, individual
psychotherapy, family therapy). The columns will contain
the psychosocial outcomes identified (e.g., well‐being,
improved mood, reduced stress, less depression, less
anxiety). Additional information will be included in the
map, which will enable to filter the map by age, duration,
region, delivery, type of death, underlying theory and
intervention design.
3.1 | EGM: Definition and Purpose
EGMs are systematic evidence synthesis products that display
the available evidence relevant to a specific research question
(White et al. 2020). EGMs are used to identify gaps in the
knowledge and responding to this gap by providing new evi-
dence and studies for potential systematic reviewing, increasing
discoverability and use of this existing material to inform
decision‐makers, policy‐makers, commissioners and re-
searchers to generate evidence‐based policy and guidelines
(White et al. 2020).
This EGM is important, as it will provide a comprehensive
description of the existing bereavement interventions for chil-
dren and adolescents, which will help identify the character-
istics of these interventions and identify outcomes that have
been improved (or not) as a result. It has been found that the
majority of children and adolescents will adjust to bereavement
without the need for an intervention; however, about 20% of
them may benefit from effective interventions to prevent lasting
poor outcomes (Currier et al. 2007).
Bereavement interventions may be crucial in the lives of some
children and adolescents who struggle with bereavement.
Currently, there is a lack of a comprehensive and systematic
tool that gathers the current existing evidence on interventions
targeted at children and adolescents. This EGM will therefore
provide a repository of the primary studies and systematic
3of9
reviews on bereavement interventions for children and adoles-
cents and identify gaps in the evidence as well as highlight areas
in which evidence is highly concentrated.
This EGM will comply with the standard EGM framework as a
matrix. The rows will have the type of intervention/programme
(e.g., group intervention, camp, individual psychotherapy,
family therapy). The columns will contain the psychosocial
outcomes identified (e.g., well‐being, improved mood, reduced
stress, less depression, less anxiety). Additional information will
be included in the map, which will enable to filter the map by
age, duration, region, delivery, type of death, underlying theory
and intervention design.
This EGM will also have a specific purpose, which is to inform
the co‐creation of a mentoring, peer support intervention for
adolescents who have experienced parental cancer. This EGM is
part of the evidence that will support and inform adolescent
TABLE 1 | Existing EGMs and systematic reviews.
Review Outcomes reported Comparison with this EGM
Yung‐Chi Chen and
Panebianco (2018)
Behavioural and school problems, parent–child
relationship, grief process, psychosocial
functioning, externalising problems, hope,
psychological distress, communicate feelings,
grief expressions, psychological symptoms
(anxiety, depression), other symptoms
(immature regression, aggression, social
withdrawal, irritability, school and learning
problems), coping skills, emotions,
relationships, cognitive symptoms.
Focused on children (3–5 years) and within a
school context. This EGM is going to be targeting
a more comprehensive age range and focus
beyond school interventions.
Duncan (2020) Open communication, Peer/social support,
expressing emotion, role of adult (including
relationships), conceptualising bereavement
(meaning‐making), finding comfort, stress and
trauma, looking to the future.
Focused on children only. Target stakeholders
are teachers. This EGM is going to be targeting a
more comprehensive age range and a wider
range of stakeholders.
Ing et al. (2022) Parent–child communication, coping strategy,
expression of grief, mental health outcomes,
psychosocial functioning, psychosocial well‐
being, satisfaction in life, social support, social
engagement, concentration. psychological
(anxiety, depression, internalising and
externalising problems, stress responses,
prolonged grief and self‐esteem) and academic
(achievement and performance), externalising
problems (self‐reported, caregiver‐reported and
teacher‐reported), decreasing internalising
problems (teacher‐reported) and improving self‐
esteem, grief‐related thoughts, depression,
conduct disorder, social detachment, job
aspirations, psychosocial functioning, traumatic
grief, traumatic grief, PTSD.
Focused on familial cancer only, this EGM is
more comprehensive. The age range is similar
(15–25). This SR is limited by parent and sibling
death; this EGM is more comprehensive.
Ridley and
Frache (2020)
Psychosomatic and socioeconomic outcomes. Focused solely on sibling death. This EGM will
be more comprehensive in the types of death
included.
Hanauer et al. (2024) Grief, PTSD, depression, grief‐related stress.
Grief education, coping techniques, peer
support, family relationships, safe environment,
comfort and healing, skills, future outlook.
Focused on children and adolescents but very
focused on grief symptoms only. This EGM will
be more comprehensive.
Rosner et al. (2010) Grief, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic
symptoms, social adjustment, well‐being,
somatic symptoms.
Age range is children between 0 and 18 years.
Focused only on quantitative outcomes,
whereas this EGM will be more inclusive.
Lopez et al. (2017) Grief treatment. Focused solely on parental and sibling death,
this EGM is more comprehensive.
Design included must have a control group.
4of9 Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2025
stakeholders in the co‐creation of their peer mentoring
bereavement intervention.
3.2 | Framework Development and Scope of
the EGM
This EGM will comply with the standard EGM framework as a
matrix. This EGM aims to be a descriptive but a comprehensive
and visual representation of bereavement interventions for
children and adolescents. The elements specified in the
framework will be coded into the EGM. The rows will have the
type of intervention/programme (e.g., group intervention,
camp, individual psychotherapy, family therapy). The columns
will contain the psychosocial outcomes identified (e.g., well‐
being, improved mood, reduced stress, less depression, less
anxiety). Additional information will be included in the map,
which will enable to filter the map filter the map by age,
duration, region, delivery, type of death, underlying theory and
intervention design. The framework is a ‘living’document and
therefore new subcategories will be added during the data ex-
traction process, based on the findings of the articles.
3.3 | Stakeholder Engagement
This map is carried out as one of the components of a major
study entitled: ‘Co‐Creation and Evaluation of the Bereavement
Mentoring Programme for Adolescents (BMPA)’. This is a
participatory study where adolescents will co‐create a bereave-
ment intervention for their peers who experience parental death
from cancer. This EGM, therefore, is part of the evidence that
will support and inform stakeholders in the creation of their
intervention. This EGM is underpinned by the aims and ob-
jectives of this study. However, Stakeholder engagement is not
foreseen at this early stage; it will instead become part of the
overall study, the scientific evidence available to support ado-
lescents in the decision‐making and the creative process.
3.4 | Conceptual Framework
3.5 | Dimensions
The inclusion and exclusion dimensions of this EGM are in-
formed by the EGM framework. The key dimensions of this
EGM are the type of intervention/programme (e.g., group
intervention, camp, individual psychotherapy). Interventions
must be targeted at children and adolescents specifically.
The psychosocial outcomes identified (e.g., well‐being, mood,
stress, depression, anxiety, anger, coping, emotional distress,
distress, expression of emotions, distress, grief symptoms, in-
ternalising problem, externalising problems, mental health,
PTSD, resilience). Adverse psychosocial outcomes will also be
coded (negative emotions, risky behaviours, sadness, stress), if
reported in the sources. The specific dimensions are described
in the dictionary of terms included in Appendix S2.
3.6 | Types of Study Design
This EGM will include all relevant primary studies and sys-
tematic reviews (published and unpublished). Primary studies
consist of individual studies where researchers generate and
analyse their own data. Primary data can include both experi-
mental (Empirical research involves an experiment in which
data are collected in two or more conditions that are identical in
all aspects but one [the manipulated variable] [Salkind 2012])
and non‐experimental designs (non‐experimental designs are
those in which an experimenter describes a group or examines
relationships between pre‐existing groups. The members of the
groups are not randomly assigned and an independent variable
is not manipulated. Therefore, no conclusions about causal re-
lationships can be drawn [Salkind 2012]), which will be sought
from several sources, including scientific journal articles, pre-
prints, books, book chapters, reports and unpublished reports.
Experimental designs may include independent measures,
repeated measures, matched pairs and quasi‐experimental
designs. Non‐experimental designs are usually observational
or descriptive in nature. These may include correlational
designs, cross‐sectional designs, observational research and
qualitative research.
5of9
Systematic reviews, consisting of a review of primary studies
adopting a systematic approach and screening with explicit
inclusion, coding and reporting criteria, will also be included in
this EGM.
3.7 | Types of Interventions/Problems
This EGM will include interventions or programmes targeted at
a child or adolescents who experienced the death of a signifi-
cant other (parent sibling, other family member, friend) or pet.
The target age is between 0 and 24 years of age, as defined by
Patton et al. (2016).
Interventions can be of any kind; for example, these can be
individual or group programmes, camps and individual
psychotherapy, as this information about the types, duration,
underlying theory and delivery of the interventions will be
extracted as well.
Included interventions must be reported as a primary study.
Primary studies are defined as an individual study where
researchers generate and analyse their own data. These can
have several types of study designs including, for example,
quantitative methods, randomised‐controlled trials (random
assignment to the intervention), case–control study, cohort
study, cross sectional study, case reports and before versus after
designs and series. Interventions can also have a qualitative
design such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography,
historical, case study and mixed‐methods research.
Systematic reviews, consisting of a review of primary studies
adopting a systematic approach and screening with explicit
inclusion, coding and reporting criteria, will also be included.
In addition to meta‐analysis and/or systematic reviews, rapid
reviews and scoping reviews, both quantitative and qualitative,
can be included.
Secondary data analyses, editorials, commentaries, opinion
pieces, guidelines and policy documents on child and adoles-
cent bereavement will be excluded. Any sources or articles not
in English or Spanish will also be excluded.
3.8 | Types of Populations
Children and adolescents who experience bereavement between
0 and 24 years of age. The top age range was defined by the
definition provided by Patton et al. (2016). Any studies included
in this age range can be included in the EGM. Age categories will
be created to extract this information (0–9children,10–14 early
adolescence, 15–19 late adolescence and 20–24 young adulthood).
3.9 | Types of Outcome Measures
The purpose of this EGM is to provide a visual summary of the
current landscape of outcomes targeted and measured in
bereavement interventions for children and adolescents. Based
on previous systematic reviews, it is important to acknowledge
that there is a great variety in outcomes measured and
associated with bereavement. For example, Yung‐Chi Chen
and Panebianco (2018) and Ing et al. (2022) report on over
20 different outcomes.
This EGM will help adolescents involved in the design of a peer
mentoring bereavement intervention, to select the outcomes
that they believe are the essential ones based on their own lived
experience. For this process to be successful, adolescents
require a comprehensive tool (this EGM) that provides them
with the full landscape of the outcomes to inform discussion
and ensure that the new intervention is originated from a solid
evidence base as well as lived experience.
The columns will contain the psychosocial outcomes identified
(e.g., well‐being, mood, stress, depression, anxiety, anger, cop-
ing, emotional distress, distress, expression of emotions, dis-
tress, grief symptoms, internalising problems, externalising
problems, mental health, PTSD, resilience). Adverse psycho-
social outcomes will also be coded (negative emotions, risky
behaviours, sadness, stress), if reported in the sources. The
specific outcomes are in the dictionary of terms included in
Appendix S2.
Additional information will be included in the map, which will
enable to filter the map by age, duration, region, delivery, type
of death, underlying theory and intervention design. As this
EGM will help inform the co‐design of an intervention for
adolescents, exploring the characteristics of existing interven-
tions is important to provide adolescents co‐creators a clear
understanding of the bereavement interventions landscape. It
has also been identified that the benefits of interventions vary
according to gender, age, developmental stage, type of inter-
vention, delivery method and the time between experiencing
the bereavement and completing the intervention (Rosner
et al. 2010; Duncan 2020); therefore, it is important to capture
this information in this EGM.
The framework (Appendix S2)isa‘living’document
and therefore new subcategories will be added during the data
extraction process, based on the findings of the included sources
and articles.
3.10 | Search Methods and Sources
To ensure the quality, reliability and applicability of this EGM,
the literature retrieval methods will follow high‐quality stan-
dards. The systematic search will be designed by the research
team and evaluated and informed by a subject specialist
librarian. Considering the expertise of the team, only primary
research and systematic reviews in English or Spanish will be
included.
3.11 | Electronic Databases
Electronic databases included are based on The University
of Edinburgh database subscriptions, specifically focused on
psychological topics. The databases are as follows:
6of9 Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2025
•ASSIA (This database captures ProQuest, ERIC, Social
Services Abstracts, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Global).
•Ovid (This database captures APA, PscyINFO, Embase and
Medline all).
•Web of Science Core Collection (This database captures the
Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities
Citation Index).
•Scopus (This database captures Medline and EMBASE).
Grey Literature:
•Overton
•Policy Commons
•Google Scholar
The search strategy will have to be adapted according to each of
the listed databases. This will be carried out with the expert
guidance of the subject specialist librarian. The proposed
data search, specific for SCOPUS‐Web of Science interface, is
included in Appendix S1.
3.12 | Other Sources
The team will also search for grey literature across multiple
sources. Grey literature consists of literature that is not pub-
lished, not peer‐reviewed and generally harder to access. There
are several sources of grey literature, for example, government
reports, privately funded research, commissioned research,
conference proceedings, working papers and dissertations.
Overton and Policy Commons will be searched for grey literature.
Google Scholar is an important source of grey literature, including
government reports and working papers. Searches in Google
Scholar are restricted to 256 characters. Only the first 1000 records
will be exported into the EGM, as this has been established
as an acceptable number to capture the most relevant results
(Miller et al. 2023). The search strategy suggested is as follows:
(bereavement)(child*¦adolescent*¦young person*)(intervention*¦
programme*)
The team will also search for relevant, systematic reviews and
meta‐analyses via The Campbell Library, The Evidence for
Policy and Practice Information and Co‐ordinating Centre
(EPPI‐Centre) and The Social Care Institute for Excellence
(SCIE). We will also search PROSPERO (University of York) for
any protocols relevant to the EGM. Additionally, the team will
hand search the reference lists of all relevant systematic reviews
to identify any eligible studies.
3.13 | Analysis and Presentation
3.13.1 | Report Structure
The output will be an EGM. It will have an accompanying
report with tables and figures showing the types of
interventions and psychosocial outcomes identified. The data
will also be written based on the selected filters: age, region,
delivery and so forth.
3.13.2 | Filters for Presentation
Filters: intervention characteristics (age, duration, region,
delivery, type of death, underlying theory and intervention
design) that can be applied to the map to show evidence
relevant to those filters.
3.13.3 | Dependency
Each entry in the map will be a mapping study, mapping a
specific domain of evidence. All publications (e.g., protocols and
reports) that are part of the same study will only be included
once on the map. Studies that cover multiple topic areas may
appear multiple times within the map.
3.14 | Data Collection and Analysis
The inclusion and exclusion criteria for this EGM are described
in Table 2below.
3.14.1 | Screening and Study Selection
Database searchers will be equally divided between the four
reviewers. Once all searches are completed, all identified sources
and articles will be imported into EndNote. Data from all mem-
bersoftheteamwillbecollatedandallduplicateswillberemoved
to avoid duplication effort in the subsequent stages of the EGM.
The studies and sources will be transferred to EPPI reviewer
software to enable data screening and extraction in duplicate.
Reviewers will be paired up to complete the different stages, title
and abstract, full text and data extraction. Any discrepancies will
be resolved by a third reviewer (a member of a different pair).
A manual search of significant interventions (such as Camp
Hope, Camp Magic and the Family Bereavement programme)
will be carried out to ensure that these have been captured in the
search. Additionally, we will search for the existing systematic
reviews identified in this protocol. This will enable us to identify if
the search terms are comprehensive and precise enough.
3.14.2 | Data Extraction and Management
The research team has developed a data extraction tool.
The tool is included in Appendix S2.
This is a ‘live’tool and will continue to be developed and
populated during the data extraction process.
Title and abstract screening as well as full‐text data extraction
will be carried out by four reviewers in duplicate using the
application EPPI Reviewer Web. To ensure consistency and
7of9
achieve high interrater reliability, a pilot study will be carried
out with a sample of 10% of included studies. Any discrepancies
will be resolved by a third reviewer.
Due to the nature of gap maps producing a vast amount of
information, if multiple studies are reported in the same pub-
lication, each separate study will be represented in the map
separately. EPPI reviewer software has the limitation that
studies cannot be merged.
Equally, if there are multiple reports of a single study, we will
treat these as a single study as it will be very difficult to identify
them and link them together.
Once coding is completed, data need to be cleaned and
checked for precision. A random sample (10%) of studies will be
selected to systematically check that the coding has been
correctly applied.
3.14.3 | Tools for Assessing the Risk of Bias/Study
Quality of Included Reviews
The methodological rigour of the systematic reviews will
be assessed in duplicate using AMSTAR‐2(Sheaetal.2017). The
methodological rigour of RCTs will be evaluated using the
Cochrane Collaboration's tool (Higgins et al. 2011). Discrepancies
that emerge in the process will be resolved by a third reviewer.
3.14.4 | Methods for Mapping
EPPI mapper will be used to create an interactive map. This
map will be piloted before making the final version available to
the public online. This map will summarise and organise all of
the existing evidence. Results will be presented visually in a way
as to identify where the evidence exists, where it is missing and
where the gaps in the knowledge are found. The rows of the
EGM will have the types of intervention/programmes (e.g.,
group interventions, camps, individual psychotherapy and
family therapy). The columns will contain the psychosocial
outcomes identified (e.g., well‐being, improved mood, reduced
stress, less depression, less anxiety). If possible, these will
be presented as short‐and long‐term outcomes. Additional
information will be included in the map, which will enable to
filter the map by mean age, region, delivery, study type and type
of loss experienced.
Additional information will be included in the map, which
will enable to filter the map by mean age, region, delivery,
study type and type of loss experienced.
The map will be accompanied by a descriptive report presenting
the main findings of the map and the implications for future
research and policy. A plain language summary will also be
included to facilitate and enable the understanding of a wider group
of stakeholders who may benefit from the findings of the EGM.
Author Contributions
Content: Leonor Rodriguez, James Lyons, Amy Maloy and Ailsa
O'Brien. EGM methods: Leonor Rodriguez. Statistical analysis: NA.
Information retrieval: Leonor Rodriguez, James Lyons, Amy Maloy and
Ailsa O'Brien.
Acknowledgements
The authors have nothing to report.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Preliminary Timeframe
Approximate date for submission of the EGM: January 2025.
Plans for Updating the EGM
This EGM will be updated every 2 years.
References
Aguirre, L. V. C., A. K. Jaramillo, T. E. Saucedo Victoria, and
A. Botero Carvajal. 2024. “Mental Health Consequences of
Parental Death and Its Prevalence in Children: A Systematic Litera-
ture Review.”Heliyon 10, no. 2: e24999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
heliyon.2024.e24999.
TABLE 2 | Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion Exclusion
•Interventions or programmes targeted at a child or adolescents who experienced the
death of a significant other (parent sibling, other family member, friend) or pet.
•0–24 years old.
•Any modality (e.g., individual or group programmes, camps, individual psychotherapy).
•Any duration.
•Any underlying theory.
•Any delivery mode (e.g., face to face or online).
•Study design primary studies (quantitative and qualitative) and systematic reviews (rapid
reviews, ‐scoping reviews, meta‐ethnography).
•English or Spanish.
•Secondary data analysis.
•Editorials.
•Commentaries.
•Opinion pieces.
•Guidelines.
•Policy documents.
•Not in English or Spanish.
8of9 Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2025
Alvis, L., N. Zhang, I. N. Sandler, and J. B. Kaplow. 2023. “Develop-
mental Manifestations of Grief in Children and Adolescents: Caregivers
as Key Grief Facilitators.”Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 16,
no. 2: 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-021-00435-0.
Arruda‐Colli, M., M. Weaver, and L. Wiener. 2017. “Communication
About Dying, Death and Bereavement: A Systematic Review of Chil-
dren Literature.”Journal of Palliative Medicine 20, no. 5: 548–559.
https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2016.0494.
Child Bereavement Network (CBN). 2024. Key Statics. https://
childhoodbereavementnetwork.org.uk/about-1/what-we-do/research-
evidence/key-statistics#:~:text=How%20many%20children%20are%
20bereaved%20of%20a%20parent%20each%20year,newly%20bereaved%
20children%20every%20day.
Currier, J. M., J. M. Holland, and R. A. Neimeyer. 2007. “The Effec-
tiveness of Bereavement Interventions With Children: A Meta‐Analytic
Review of Controlled Outcome Research.”Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology 36, no. 2: 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15374410701279669.
Duncan, D. 2020. “Death and Dying: A Systematic Review Into
Approaches Used to Support Bereaved Children.”Review of Education
8, no. 2: 452–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3193.
Fauth, B., M. Thompson, and A. Penny. 2009. Associations Between
Childhood Bereavement and Children's Background, Experiences and
Outcomes. National Children's Bureau.
Hanauer, C., B. Telaar, R. Rosner, and B. K. Doering. 2024. “The Efficacy
of Psychosocial Interventions for Grief Symptoms in Bereaved Children
and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.”Journal of
Affective Disorders 350: 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.01.063.
Harris, D. 2019. Non‐Death Loss and Grief. Routledge.
Higgins, J. P. T., D. G. Altman, P. C. Gotzsche, et al. 2011. “The Co-
chrane Collaboration's Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised
Trials.”BMJ 343: d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.
Ing, V., P. Patterson, M. Szabo, and K. R. Allison. 2022. “Interventions
Available to Adolescents and Young Adults Bereaved by Familial
Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.”BMJ Supportive & Palliative
Care 12: e632–e640. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-001959.
Kaplow, J. B., J. Saunders, A. Angold, and E. J. Costello. 2010.
“Psychiatric Symptoms in Bereaved Versus Non Bereaved Youth and
Young Adults.”Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry 49, no. 11: 1145–1154. https://doi.org/10.1097/
00004583-201011000-00008.
Lopez, K., H. Knudsen, and T. Hansen. 2017. “What Is Measured in
Bereavement Treatment for Children and Adolescents? A Systematic
Literature Review.”Illness, Crisis & Loss 28, no. 4: 363–387. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1054137317741713.
McClatchey, I., and J. Wimmer. 2018. Bereavement Camps for Children
and Adolescents. Routledge.
Melhem, N. M. 2011. “Grief in Children and Adolescents Bereaved by
Sudden Parental Death.”Archives of General Psychiatry 68, no. 9: 911.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.101.
Miller, S., C. Keenan, E. Early, K. McConnell, and L. Rodriguez. 2023.
“Protocol: Education and Covid‐19: An Evidence and Gap Map.”
Campbell Systematic Reviews 19, no. 1: e1318. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cl2.1318.
Patton, G., S. Sawyer, J. Santelli, et al. 2016. “Our Future: A Lancet
Commission on Adolescents' Health and Wellbeing.”HHS Public Access
37: 2423–2478. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00579-1.
Paul, S., and N. Vaswani. 2020. “The Prevalence of Childhood
Bereavement in Scotland and Its Relationship With Disadvantage: The
Significance of a Public Health Approach to Death, Dying and
Bereavement.”Palliative Care and Social Practice 14: e1318. https://doi.
org/10.1177/263252420975043.
Pfeffer, C. R., H. Jiang, T. Kakuma, J. Hwang, and M. Metsch. 2002.
“Group Intervention for Children Bereaved by the Suicide of a Relative.”
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 41,
no. 5: 505–513. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200205000-00007.
Ridley, A., and S. Frache. 2020. “Bereavement Care Interventions for
Children Under the Age of 18 Following the Death of a Sibling: A
Systematic Review.”Palliative Medicine 34, no. 10: 1340–1350. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0269216320947951.
Rosner, R., J. Kruse, and M. Hagl. 2010. “A Meta‐Analysis of Inter-
ventions for Bereaved Children and Adolescents.”Death Studies 34,
no. 2: 99–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180903492422.
Salkind, N. 2012. Encyclopaedia of Research Design. SAGE. https://doi.
org/10.4135/9781412961288.
Sandler, I., S. Wolchik, T. Ayers, J. Tein, and L. Luecken. 2013. “Family
Bereavement Program (FBP) Approach to Promoting Resilience Fol-
lowing the Death of a Parent.”Family Science 4, no. 1: 87–94. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2013.821763.
Santos, S., T. Sá, I. Aguiar, I. Cardoso, Z. Correia, and T. Correia. 2021.
“Case Report: Parental Loss and Childhood Grief During COVID‐19
Pandemic.”Frontiers in Psychiatry 12: 626940. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyt.2021.626940.
Shea, B. J., B. C. Reeves, G. Wells, et al. 2017. “AMSTAR 2: A Critical
Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews That Include Randomised or
Non‐Randomised Studies of Healthcare Interventions or Both.”BMJ
358: j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008.
Shear, M. K., A. Ghesquiere, and K. Glickman. 2013. “Bereavement and
Complicated Grief.”Current Psychiatry Reports 15, no. 11: 406. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11920-013-0406-z.
Speece, M. W., and S. B. Brent. 1984. “Children's Understanding of
Death: A Review of Three Components of a Death Concept.”Child
Development 55, no. 5: 1671. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129915.
Thienprayoon, R., R. Campbell, and N. Winick. 2015. “Attitudes and
Practices in the Bereavement Care Offered by Children's Hospital.”
OMEGA –Journal of Death and Dying 71, no. 1: 48–59. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0030222814568287.
Vaswani, N. 2014. “Bereavement Among Young Men in Prison.”
Criminal Justice Matters 98, no. 1: 20–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09627251.2014.984540.
White, H., B. Albers, M. Gaarder, et al. 2020. “Guidance for Producing a
Campbell Evidence and Gap Map.”Campbell Systematic Reviews 16,
no. 4: e1125. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1125.
Woodward, K., Z. Yu, W. Chen, et al. 2023. “Childhood Bereavement,
Adverse and Positive Childhood Experiences and Flourishing Among
Chinese Young Adults.”International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 20: 4631. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph20054631.
Yung‐Chi Chen, C., and A. Panebianco. 2018. “Interventions for Young
Bereaved Children: A Systematic Review and Implications for School
Mental Health Providers.”Child & Youth Care Forum 47: 151–171.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-017-9426-x.
Zuelke, A. E., M. Luppa, M. Löbner, et al. 2021. “Effectiveness and
Feasibility of Internet‐Based Interventions for Grief After Bereavement:
Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.”JMIR Mental Health 8, no. 12:
e29661. https://doi.org/10.2196/29661.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information can be found online in the
Supporting Information section.
9of9
Content uploaded by Leonor Rodriguez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leonor Rodriguez on Mar 23, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
