ABSTRACT

Background and objectives

Evidence shows that the centrality of a loss-event maintains emotional distress following loss. Aims of the current study were to examine (i) if subgroups of bereaved people can be distinguished based on their endorsement of different manifestations of loss-centrality, (ii) if subgroup membership was associated with socio-demographic and loss-related variables, and (iii) the linkage of subgroup membership with symptom-levels of prolonged grief (PG), posttraumatic stress (PTS), and depression assessed concurrently and 6 months later.

Methods

Three-hundred ninety-eight bereaved people completed the 7-item Centrality of Event Scale, with their loss as anchor-event and completed symptom-measures concurrently and 6 months later. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to identity profiles of loss-centrality.

Results

LPA revealed a three-profile solution representing low, average, and high centrality classes, respectively. The death of a partner and younger age increased the likelihood of membership of classes evidencing stronger centrality. Membership of the low centrality class was associated with lower concurrent PG, PTS, and depression; membership of the high centrality class predicted elevated PG 6 months later, beyond baseline PG.

Conclusions

Subgroups of loss-centrality were distinguished by increasing endorsement of all (rather than some) manifestations of loss-centrality. Clinical implications are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

损失事件的中心性：模式、相关性和预测值

摘要

背景和目标

有证据表明，损失事件的中心性使损失后的情绪困扰得以维持。当前研究的目的是检查 (i) 是否可以根据失去亲人的不同表现形式来区分他们的亚组，(ii) 亚组成员是否与社会人口统计学和与损失相关的变量有关，以及(iii) 同时和 6 个月后评估的亚组成员与长期悲伤 (PG)、创伤后压力 (PTS) 和抑郁症的症状水平之间的联系。

方法

398 名失去亲人的人完成了 7 项事件中心性量表，以他们的损失作为锚定事件，并在 6 个月后同时完成了症状测量。潜在配置文件分析 (LPA) 用于识别损失中心性的配置文件。

结果

LPA 揭示了一个三个轮廓的解决方案，分别代表低、平均和高中心性类别。伴侣的死亡和更年轻的年龄增加了证明更强中心性的班级成员的可能性。低中心性类别的成员与较低的并发 PG、PTS 和抑郁相关；高中心性等级的成员预测 6 个月后 PG 升高，超过基线 PG。

结论

损失中心性的亚组的特点是越来越多地认可损失中心性的所有（而不是某些）表现形式。讨论了临床意义。