Application of the dual process model in end-of-life and bereavement interventions: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to review the current status of applications of the Dual Process Model (DPM) in end-of-life and bereavement interventions, and to provide a reference for the design of future DPM-based end-of-life and bereavement interventions and continuous support.

METHODS

Using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology and following the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines, we systematically searched Chinese and English databases for studies on the application of DPM in end-of-life and bereavement interventions. The included studies were charted and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies were included. Existing research has primarily focused on bereavement adjustment after death, with a small number of studies addressing anticipatory grief among family members of terminally ill patients and continuous support before and after death. The scope of research has gradually expanded from individuals who have lost a spouse or partner to include those experiencing complicated or prolonged grief, family members of terminally ill patients, those who have lost loved ones to cancer, those who have lost loved ones in disasters or pandemics, and refugees, among other groups. DPM applications primarily fall into three areas: process identification and analysis, intervention structure design, and theoretical integration. Intervention content shows a dual emphasis on loss-oriented and restoration-oriented processes. Outcome measures tend to focus more on psychological indicators such as grief, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress, while paying relatively less attention to process-oriented indicators emphasized by DPM, such as the oscillation process, life reconstruction, and dynamic regulation.

CONCLUSION

DPM offers an important theoretical perspective for understanding the dual needs of coping with loss and resuming life in end-of-life care and bereavement. Existing studies indicate that DPM has been applied to various bereaved populations and intervention settings. However, its application during the end-of-life stage remains limited, and the oscillation process has not been sufficiently operationalized. Future research should further clarify how DPM guides intervention development, implementation adjustment, and outcome evaluation. Digital delivery and cultural adaptation should also be integrated to build continuous end-of-life and bereavement support across the transition before and after death.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HF7Q2.