CBT for prolonged grief

Synthesis

Komischke-Konnerup et al. (2024) found benefits of grief-focused CBT across adult trials, while warning about inconsistency and indirectness. A pooled effect across different comparison groups should not be interpreted as superiority to every alternative. The intervention also commonly includes more than reflection: treatment targets grief-related avoidance, beliefs, and engagement with life. Evidence of improvement does not imply that ordinary bereavement requires treatment.

Sources: Komischke-Konnerup et al., 2024

An active comparison and durability

Rosner et al. (2025) compared grief-specific CBT with present-centered therapy in specialist outpatient clinics. A small between-group advantage for grief severity after treatment was less certain at the primary follow-up, where its confidence interval included no difference. Both groups improved, but within-group changes should not be presented as the causal effect of CBT. The paper also reports benefits on some comorbid outcomes. These results support a more qualified account of treatment choice than a claim that the CBT label guarantees a better long-term result.

Sources: Rosner et al., 2025

Implications and open questions

Targeted therapies may help prolonged, impairing grief, while experiences of bereavement vary with culture and circumstances. This selective evidence map is not a diagnostic assessment. A remembrance journal or supportive conversation does not inherit a grief-treatment effect from these trials. Future evaluation would need to separate acceptability and personal meaning from symptom outcomes, allow participants to stop distressing activities, and involve appropriately trained clinical collaborators. Those are proposed principles, not observed benefits of the company’s products.