Skip to content

Diagnostic Tools for Identifying Prolonged Grief

Diagnostic Tools for Identifying Prolonged Grief: Development and Validation of the First Clinical Diagnostic Interview for Assessing Prolonged Grief Disorder With the ICD 11 Criteria and DSM-5 Tr Criteria.

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05365139
Enrollment
124
Registered
2022-05-09
Start date
2021-08-23
Completion date
2023-11-01
Last updated
2025-08-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Prolonged Grief Disorder

Keywords

PGD, prolonged grief disorder, clinical interview, ICD-11 PGD, DSM-5 Tr PGD

Brief summary

Development and validation of first clinical diagnostic interview for assessing Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD) with the ICD 11 and DSM 5 Tr criteria.

Detailed description

Development and validation of first clinical diagnostic interview for assessing Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD) with the ICD 11 and DSM 5 Tr criteria. Background: With WHO's introduction of PGD in the ICD 11, which will be implemented in Health Services worldwide from January 2022, there is a need to accurately diagnose people with ICD-11PGD (PGD caseness) with a valid structured clinical interview. With ICD-11 a slightly different set of symptoms for PGD is defined as the gold standard for PGD. This standard will be used for diagnosing and understanding PGD in future research and health service. ICD-11 aims to be descriptive, e.g. provides a support for the clinicians to identify PGD by describing common reactions and symptoms of this disorder, but there is still a need to evaluate the validity of these criteria. Strict diagnostic criteria with defined numbers, combinations, and intensity of symptoms (e.g. for the use in research) are not yet defined in ICD-11 and no structured clinical interview that measure ICD-11 or the upcoming DSM 5 tr PGD has yet been developed and validated for this purpose. This means that the field currently stand without reliable ways to classify accurately who has PGD diagnosis and who has not. Without such constructs, PGD is not possible to identify, and ultimately to treat, in a validated and reliable way. There is therefore a need to develop accurate tests that measure ICD 11 PGD, both in a structured clinical interview for use in direct meetings between patients and health service professionals and in relation to a self-report scale. The investigators already developed the Aarhus PGD scale but still need a structured clinical interview. Aim: In this project we will 1. Develop and validate the first structured, clinical interview for ICD-11 PGD and DSM-5 Tr PGD 2. Identify a valid clinical cut-off for diagnostic PGD on The Aarhus PGD Scale. Method: Based on the ICD-11 and DSM 5 Tr PGD criteria and our work with the self-report scale above the investigators will develop a structured, clinical interview, The Aarhus PGD Interview, in line with the strategy used in SCID-I interviews \[6\]. This study will examine the content validity, the concurrent validity, the test-retest reliability and the inter-rater reliability of this interview. After the Aarhus PGD Interview is validated, this study will compare the participant's scores on the Aarhus PGD Scale for ICD 11 and DSM 5 Tr PGD with the clinical interview as the gold standard. This will allow investigating the diagnostic test accuracy of the ICD-11 PGD scale, and to identify a valid clinical cut-off on this scale. Perspectives: The main aim of this study is to develop and validate the first structured, clinical interview for ICD 11 and DSM 5 Tr PGD. It will provide reliable constructs to separate PGD from other, trans-diagnostic forms of complicated grief reactions such as PTSD, depression and anxiety following a loss. The ability to identify who actually has a diagnosis of PGD and are in need of treatment is crucial to be able to allocate health benefits as efficient and helpful as possible. It is also crucial in identifying the vast majority of bereaved people with normal grief reactions, and to reduce the risk of pathologizing healthy grief, which is a concern brought on by the introduction of PGD as a diagnostic entity

Interventions

OTHERStructured clinical diagnostic interview for PGD (PGD-I)

Participants were administered the Structured clinical diagnostic interview for PGD (PGD-I) and screened with clinical interviews for PTSD, anxiety and depression. Whether the Aarhus PGD-scale should be answered before or after the interview was randomized. The PGD-I and self-report scale were readministered to 50 participants 7-14 days after the initial administration.

Sponsors

University of Aarhus
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
CROSS_SECTIONAL

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum

Inclusion criteria

* Bereaved by the loss a loved one to death minimum 6 month ago * 18 years or above * The grief is still (more or less) affecting function/everyday life

Exclusion criteria

* Bereaved by other losses than a loved person (e.g., pet, divorce) * 17 years or younger * Less than 6 month ago since the loss.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Prolonged grief disorder (ICD-11 and DSM-TR)1 dayThe Aarhus PGD-interview (dichotomous scoring 0/1 (1 equals worse outcome))

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Post traumatic stress disorder1 daythe MINI interview adapted to DSM-5 PTSD criteria (structured clinical interview, dichotomous scoring 0/1 (1 equals worse outcome))
Depression and generalized anxiety disorder1 dayThe Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN) (semi-structrured clinical interview, dichotomous scoring 0/1 (1 equals worse outcome))
The Aarhus PGD-Scale1 daySelf report questionnaire based on 26 5-point Likert scale items (higher scores equals worse outcome)

Countries

Denmark

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026