Bereavement is a universal experience, and its association with excess morbidity and mortality is well established. Nevertheless, grief becomes a serious health concern for a relative few. For such individuals, intense grief persists, is distressing and disabling, and may meet criteria as a distinct mental disorder. At present, grief is not recognized as a mental disorder in the DSM-IV or ICD-10. The goal of this study was to determine the psychometric validity of criteria for prolonged grief disorder (PGD) to enhance the detection and potential treatment of bereaved individuals at heightened risk of persistent distress and dysfunction. A total of 291 bereaved respondents were interviewed three times, grouped as 0–6, 6–12, and 12–24 mo post-loss. Item response theory (IRT) analyses derived the most informative, unbiased PGD symptoms. Combinatoric analyses identified the most sensitive and specific PGD algorithm that was then tested to evaluate its psychometric validity. Criteria require reactions to a significant loss that involve the experience of yearning (e.g., physical or emotional suffering as a result of the desired, but unfulfilled, reunion with the deceased) and at least five of the following nine symptoms experienced at least daily or to a disabling degree: feeling emotionally numb, stunned, or that life is meaningless; experiencing mistrust; bitterness over the loss; difficulty accepting the loss; identity confusion; avoidance of the reality of the loss; or difficulty moving on with life. Symptoms must be present at sufficiently high levels at least six mo from the death and be associated with functional impairment. The criteria set for PGD appear able to identify bereaved persons at heightened risk for enduring distress and dysfunction. The results support the psychometric validity of the criteria for PGD that we propose for inclusion in DSM-V and ICD-11. Please see later in the article for Editors' Summary

Objective: Demoralization, as described by Jerome Frank, is experienced as a persistent inability to cope, together with associated feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, meaninglessness, subjective incompetence and diminished self-esteem. It is arguably the main reason people seek psychiatric treatment, yet is a concept largely ignored in psychiatry. The aim here is to review and summarize the literature pertaining to demoralization in order to examine the validity of the construct. Method: A narrative review of demoralization and the related concepts of hope, hopelessness, and meaning is presented, drawing on a range of empirical and observational studies in the medical and psychiatric literature. Results: An examination of the concepts of the ‘Giving Up–Given Up’ syndrome (George Engel), ‘suffering’ (Eric Cassell), and demoralization (Jerome Frank), demonstrate considerable convergence of ideas. Demoralization has been commonly observed in the medically and psychiatrically ill and is experienced as existential despair, hopelessness, helplessness, and loss of meaning and purpose in life. Although sharing symptoms of distress, demoralization is distinguished from depression by subjective incompetence in the former and anhedonia in the latter. Demoralization can occur in people who are depressed, cancer patients who are not depressed and those with schizophrenia. Hopelessness, the hallmark of demoralization, is associated with poor outcomes in physical and psychiatric illness, and importantly, with suicidal ideation and the wish to die. Conclusions: Demoralization is an important construct with established descriptive and predictive validity. A place needs to be found for it in psychiatric nomenclature.

The development and elaboration of a conceptualization of existential distress in patients with advanced disease is crucial in order to optimize our clinical response within palliative medicine. Demoralization is one expression of existential distress. Its empirical study will be greatly enhanced by a self-report measure that captures its dimensions and intensity. We report here on the development and testing of the Demoralization Scale in 100 patients with cancer. Factor analysis identified five relatively distinct dimensions: loss of meaning, dysphoria, disheartenment, helplessness, and sense of failure. These factors show high internal reliability, and convergent validity with the McGill Quality of Life Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire, Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Hopelessness Scale, Hunter Opinions and Personal Expectations Scale, and the Schedule of Attitudes toward Hastened Death. Its divergent validity is demonstrated through the differentiation of a subgroup of patients with high demoralization who do not meet DSM-IV categorization for a diagnosis of major depression. Confirmatory validation is needed for the scale to be used as a measure of change in interventions designed to treat demoralization.