Abstract
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’ pioneering work focused on dying, yet some clinicians persist in prescribing it as a path through grief. We surveyed 964 mental health clinicians who completed a five-section mixed methods survey: two sections assessed knowledge with multiple choice questions and a case study to assess clinicians’ knowledge-base and approach to grief/loss in practice. Analysis of four items related to Kübler-Ross’ model and 66/962 case studies indicates ongoing use of “stages” and Kübler-Ross’ model. Only 330 (34.2%) of the clinicians were deemed knowledgeable; 462 (47.9%) were questionable; and 172 (17.9%) were misinformed, continuing to use Kübler-Ross’ stage theory for grief.
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the time taken by the respondents to reflectively answer our survey. We also are grateful for the Grounded Research in Practice project of the Rutgers School of Social Work that selected this project for in-kind support and provided the email listserv for the survey distribution. We also acknowledge Jeanne Koller’s contributions to the preparation of this project.
Ethics statement
The research was ethically reviewed by the university IRB, following the Belmont Report and the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines. All respondents indicated understanding of the informed consent prior to completion of the survey.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 It should be noted that we do not reject Kübler-Ross’ analysis altogether. As noted, her research was done with people who were terminally ill and was, per her title, about “what the dying have to teach.” Her stages likely reflect a trajectory for many who are dying, but they do not reflect an empirically grounded progression or set of stages for those who are grieving a loss, whether a death or other type of loss (job, relationship, status, etc.). We also have seen the harm to grievers who believe this is a prescription for how to do grief well. See Corr (Citation2020) for further explication.