View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Postvention: A Community-Based Family Support Initiative and Model of Responding to Tragic Events, Including Suicide

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Postvention: A Community-Based Family Support Initiative and Model of Responding to Tragic Events, Including Suicide
Language: English
Authors: Forde, Susan, Devaney, Carmel
Source: Child Care in Practice. Jan 2006 12(1):53-61.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2006
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Descriptors: Family Needs, Family Programs, Suicide, Prevention, Program Development, Program Implementation, Coping, Economically Disadvantaged, Urban Areas, Community Programs, Program Effectiveness, Social Support Groups
Geographic Terms: Ireland
DOI: 10.1080/13575270500526303
ISSN: 1357-5279
Abstract: This paper provides an account of the design, development and implementation of a postvention model of responding to the needs of families within a community following the aftermath of a tragic event, including suicide. This model was developed for a specific disadvantaged urban community. The paper includes the context of the need for such an undertaking and discussion on the family support theories that underpin its development. A retrospective critique of the initiative and subsequent model is provided, including the inherent strengths and limitations and a description of further family support practice developments.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 21
Entry Date: 2008
Accession Number: EJ817994
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHW65SR6ro530wbT0j_NyGlAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAEInXdzmqFrZO-3-QIBEICBmX8M-JlcsDxMO40ZpEEPDYl_MUGL6c3eQJXnPHr0a1ogE8QUz6N56806iWxYJnptNjBJD4le0zFZqgNjCvMv-5HrK6kCl8Dyy-hM-obNZDkGKM4mZGtSN2hgoS5A0BhAUaxFH1kxJQY7ZT25Rw7U2D4cjmlaY1Myylit7Ej_cPm8coFp3DKSTAVqfU5oqxv4ElG6u7JM_kzdeg==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0019896439;j2301jan.06;2019Mar06.14:12;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0019896439-1">Postvention: A Community-based Family Support Initiative and Model of Responding to Tragic Events, Including Suicide. </title> <sbt id="AN0019896439-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>This paper provides an account of the design, development and implementation of a postvention model of responding to the needs of families within a community following the aftermath of a tragic event, including suicide. This model was developed for a specific disadvantaged urban community. The paper includes the context of the need for such an undertaking and discussion on the family support theories that underpin its development. A retrospective critique of the initiative and subsequent model is provided, including the inherent strengths and limitations and a description of further family support practice developments.</p> <p>The purpose of this paper is to retrospectively examine a family support practice initiative, both in its execution and the influence it has had on practice as a result. The aim of the initiative was to devise, develop and adapt a family support model, in line with best practice, of responding to the needs of families within the community following the aftermath of a tragic event, including suicide. The geographical context of the task was a community located on the east side of Galway city that has experienced a high rate of suicide and other tragic events. The community is served by two Health Service Executive, Western Area Family Support projects, namely a Neighborhood Youth Project and a Springboard Family Support Service. The Neighborhood Youth Project is a community-based adolescent and family support project, while the Springboard project concentrates on providing support to young children and parents more specifically. However, while both projects fall within the domain of family support, they have separate aims and objectives but share common issues, concerns and needs. Similarly, both projects operate from a preventative strengths-based perspective.</p> <p>The rationale for the development of this family support model included the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • As meeting the needs of families following suicide is an issue common to both projects, and both staff teams had specific questions on best practice in responding to families in such difficult circumstances, it was deemed appropriate to jointly develop a model.</item> <p></p> <item> • Recognition that suicide and tragic events occur in all communities.</item> <p></p> <item> • There were no previous written procedures, guidelines or protocols for community-based family support services in responding to tragic events and suicide.</item> </ulist> <p>The initiative set out to devise a model that would have a broad remit in terms of the categories of persons it could be applied to. The model is intended to be transferable for use in situations where adults and young people have died both within the immediate and extended family and within the community itself. The initiative was instigated, devised and implemented in partnership between the project leaders of both projects. This paper will firstly situate the initiative within the theoretical frameworks that underpin family support. Secondly, the planning, implementation and outcomes of the initiative will be discussed, including future opportunities, followed finally by an analysis of its strengths and limitations.</p> <hd id="AN0019896439-3">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>While typically, although not exclusively, family support focuses on prevention, it also has a support function in terms of crisis and tragic life events. The initiative falls into this category; however, it still maintains a clear support function with the key preventative strategy of ensuring social support for families experiencing tragedy, with the long-term goal of preventing stagnation by ensuring that families are linking with and aware of support services if required for the future.</p> <p>The model is heavily influenced by the guiding principles that underpin the practice of family support. These principles are evident within the model, in terms of listening to service users, inter-agency working, provision of needs-led services and focusing on prevention and early intervention (Brady, Dolan, & Canavan, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>]; Henderson & Bradford, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref2">13</reflink>]; McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>]; McKeown, Clarke, & Little, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref4">18</reflink>]). Perhaps the outcome of the initiative creates more specific good practice principles, as they refer to the details of guiding how family support services are provided in tragic circumstances (Brady <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>]). In this instance, it can be argued that the principles of family support as applied to this initiative have led to the development of a family support model of good practice in dealing with tragic events. Therefore, the principles of family support equate to standards of best practice and quality.</p> <p>The principles of family support are firmly embedded in the ecological perspective that recognises the family is a system within itself, where the care, protection and development of children, among other functions, are facilitated. The ecological perspective is referred to by Bronfenbrenner ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>]) as a set of nested systems, which he refers to as the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem. One of the main thrusts of the ecological approach is that families do not exist in isolation and they are both effected by and influenced by the surrounding environment. Essentially, the ecological perspective proposes that there is an interdependent relationship between the individual and the environment (Bronfenbrenner, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]; Garbarino, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]; Jack, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>]; Kemp, Whittaker, & Tracey, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>In terms of tragic life events, the microsystem is ultimately affected and devastated by the event. However, it also has support systems and relationships within it that will support coping. Similarly, the mesosystem is also an available support and, in terms of this initiative, families known to family support services prior to the crisis have already incorporated the service into their mesosystem.</p> <p>Previously, reference was made to social support. Essentially, it equips one with the provisions to deal with stress and cope in life (Cohen & Wills, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref11">7</reflink>]). Research suggests that social support can act as a stress-buffering factor by providing help or support at moments of particular need (Ghate & Hazel, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>], p. 17). Social support incorporates the provision of instrumental and emotional assistance at times of need, so that long-term stress is prevented or does not arise easily (Barrera, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>]; Cohen & Wills, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref14">7</reflink>]; Lazarus & Folkman, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]; Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref16">19</reflink>]). A distinction should be made between formal and informal support. Informal support arises out of a person's own network of family and friends, whereas formal support is provided by paid persons or services outside of this network (Ghate & Hazel, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref17">12</reflink>]). Natural informal support is crucial and should not be undervalued in favour of formal support, particularly during times of crisis. Cutrona (2002, p. 120) argues that a support worker's "first priority should be facilitating the flow of support within existing social networks of family and friends, rather than trying to 'graft on' new sources of support". Similarly, Cutrona ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref18">9</reflink>]) also emphasises that emotional support can be provided to members of the natural network to sustain them in their efforts to support other members of the network.</p> <p>Another crucial consideration in the provision of social support is that of timing (Dolan & Holt, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref19">10</reflink>]). Likewise, different kinds of support are more beneficial at different stages of the crisis. Cutrona ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]) and Weiss ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>]) describe the stages of crisis and the requirements from support providers. Initially, on learning of a crisis or tragedy, a person may simply need assistance in managing the crisis (e.g. calling for an ambulance, gathering information about what happened, making funeral arrangements, etc.). Essentially, Weiss ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref22">20</reflink>]) contends that a crisis can end in either of two ways: the person makes a full recovery, or "persisting disruption" occurs (the person dies). In the latter case the family enters a period of "transition", and Weiss suggests that three different kinds of support providers are important. The first is the "expert", who is a person with authority who has studied the problem. Generally, the family support worker falls into this category. It should be noted that while the worker may not necessarily have all the expertise required in terms of counselling, psychiatric care, and so on, the expertise is in the ability to access the right service for the individual at the right time and to support them in using such services. One of the key roles of a family support worker is to access appropriate services for young people and families. This may include making referrals on behalf of the family, coordinating an interagency response, providing assistance to attend appointments, among other roles.</p> <p>A second type of support is the "veteran", who is a person who has already been through this experience and has learned to cope. The third type is that of "fellow participants", other people who are experiencing the same life transition. The initiative generally incorporates the first category of support providers, while the latter two may be more appropriate forms of support in terms of meeting the family's medium-term to long-term support needs. Cutrona (2000, p. 111) argues that it is important to ensure "optimal matching" between stress and social support. That is the provision of the right type of support for the particular presenting crisis. She argues that nurturant support and instrumental support are most beneficial in different kings of stressful life events. In situations where the crisis can be controlled, instrumental support is favourable; however, in situations where the crisis is not controllable, nurturant support is best.</p> <p>Another concern in terms of the provision of family support is that people who may need help or perceive they need help do not ask for help from available services (Broadhurst, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>]). There may be countless reasons for this but what is important is that family support services must strive to ensure accessibility and amiable services. It is also crucial to bear in mind the issue or reciprocity. Williams ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]) points out that receiving support, no matter how warranted, creates an emotional cost for the receiver and damages their "self-image as independent self-sustaining persons". Evidence propounds that while receiving support is beneficial, the experience of reciprocity is most strongly associated with psychological well-being (Cutrona, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref25">8</reflink>]). By the same token, Cutrona also finds that people do not uncritically accept offers of support. In general, people tend to be umbrageous as to why support is being offered to them. However, if they perceive it as genuine concern, the likelihood of acceptance is greater. Additionally, McKeown ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref26">17</reflink>]) contends that family support must be responsive, accessible and must be available to families when they need it.</p> <p>This practice initiative is firmly embedded in the guiding principles of family support and the ecological perspective. Similarly, the concepts of social networks and social support that are inherent in the practice of family support are also evident and they are viewed as protective mechanisms that serve to strengthen individuals and families. The notion of reciprocity is also discussed and the importance of its inclusion in the provision of family support.</p> <hd id="AN0019896439-4">The Planning, Implementation and Outcomes of the Initiative</hd> <p>The first undertaking was the establishment of an advisory group whose purpose was to oversee the initiative, to advise on how best to achieve the aim and to elicit their expertise in the area. Membership included statutory and voluntary family support personnel and community representation. The advisory group approved the rationale for the initiative as discussed previously. The advisory group continued to meet over the course of the initiative and officially approved the resulting model prior to it being finalised and presented to project staff and management.</p> <p>Three methodologies were chosen in order to gather relevant, appropriate and expert knowledge in order to complete the initiative and create the model:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. A literature review was conducted, including consultation with Health Service Executive, Western Area staff and others who have expertise in the areas of mental health, community health, child and adolescent psychiatry, education and service users. An outcome of this exercise included the compilation of a reading and resource pack.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. A focus group was conducted comprising persons with expertise across a wide range of disciplines and agencies, and rich qualitative data were gathered as a result of this process. Questions asked of the focus group centred on their opinions of what is best practice when responding to the needs of a family following a tragic event. The discussion was contextualised in terms of families known and unknown to family support services prior to the tragedy.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with service users, including parents and adolescents. This process enabled experiential information to be obtained as some of the service users had experienced tragedy, while others had excellent working relations with the family support services and were able to give their opinions based on their experience of using the service.</item> </ulist> <p>The information gathered from the literature review, the focus group and the interviews was collated and informed the design of "a family support model of response to tragic events in a community setting". This family support model provides systematic guidance for family support staff in responding to families both known and unknown to the service. It includes guidelines for staff in terms of the short-term, medium-term and long-term actions that may be required to meet the families' needs. It is also important to note that, prior to the adoption of the model by management and staff, a draft model was presented to the service users who were involved in the interviews, for their consent and approval.</p> <p>The implications which this initiative and the resulting model have had on practice have been far-reaching. Unfortunately, since the adoption of the model, tragic life events have occurred in the community. Generally, family support staff have reported feeling more comfortable in their approach towards offering support to these families, as the model clearly delineates a pathway. The model informs a practical response for guiding project staff in their role. However, caution must be exercised in using this model as it does not compensate for common-sense and sound professional judgement. Another outcome of this initiative is that it created a forum for discussion and placed the management of tragedy on the agenda, both for professionals and for the community in general. It also raised the issue of a community approach to the prevention of tragedy, including suicide, which subsequently resulted in two further practice initiatives being developed.</p> <p>The first was the development of a help card. A multi-agency and multi-disciplinary approach was taken in devising the card and included representatives from the statutory Health Services, voluntary organisations and the local community. The card was sponsored by the Health Services Executive, Western Area and was hand-delivered to every household and amenity in the community. The second outcome was the facilitation of an information night for parents concerned by suicide. A video was made for this event, the purpose of which was to generate discussion and, more importantly, to impart valuable information.</p> <hd id="AN0019896439-5">Strengths and Limitations of the Initiative, Including Future Opportunities</hd> <p>Retrospectively, an analysis of the initiative and model raises both strengths and limitations in both the execution of the task and in the resulting model.</p> <hd id="AN0019896439-6">Strengths</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • The initiative and model is firmly embedded in family support theory. Particularly, in terms of family support principles, the ecological perspective, social support and the concept of reciprocity.</item> <p></p> <item> • The model has two categories. The first refers to families that are known to family support services prior to the tragedy occurring, while the second category are families that are unknown to services prior to the tragedy. This categorisation is based on theoretical evidence and best practice. It is not appropriate for family support workers to enter a family system for the first time, particularly at a time of tragedy, without invitation and agreement from the family. Therefore, in terms of unknown families, the model recommends that the family support worker should refrain from engaging in the family system directly but instead should make a link with a person who is already involved in the family's support network (Cutrona, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref27">9</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> • The model recognises the importance of a family's informal social network and seeks to consolidate this rather than replace it with formal support networks.</item> <p></p> <item> • Engrained in the model is the importance of considering timing when offering any type of family support.</item> <p></p> <item> • The model is mindful of the emotional cost of receiving support and tries to minimise this by ensuring that any support offered comes as a result of genuine concern. The theory of reciprocity argues that, if this is the case, the likelihood of acceptance is greater.</item> <p></p> <item> • In keeping with the ecological perspective, the model recognises the inter-dependency and inter-connectedness of the family system and recommends that the support needs of the extended family, friends, neighbours and the community in general be considered.</item> <p></p> <item> • The model emphasises that respect for the wishes of the family are paramount.</item> <p></p> <item> • The initiative was as a result of tragedies and a genuine concern and desire to provide a family support response that was in line with best practice.</item> <p></p> <item> • Throughout, the initiative and model was quality assured and several systems were put in place to ensure quality; for example, the advisory committee, presentation of a draft model to service users, a robust methodology was used as more than once source of information gathering.</item> <p></p> <item> • The model was developed in consultation with service users and had a multi-agency and multi-disciplinary focus.</item> <p></p> <item> • The framework used to devise the model is easily transferable for use by other family support services in other communities.</item> <p></p> <item> • Similarly, the model is dynamic and can be adapted as required in line with research outcomes and best practice initiatives.</item> <p></p> <item> • The initiative was a catalyst for other developments, including the reading and resource pack, the help card and the information support evening for parents concerned by suicide, including the video.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0019896439-7">Limitations</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • The task did not consider the level of need of a family prior to a tragedy; for example, families in level 1 and level 4 of the Hardiker model could have very different support needs and experience of services, and as a result require different approaches and interventions. The model is perhaps too universal in its orientation.</item> <p></p> <item> • The model does not consider the breadth of responsibility that a family support service may acquire if families who experience tragedy do not have functional informal support networks.</item> <p></p> <item> • The model assumes that family support staff have a basic understanding of bereavement and loss.</item> <p></p> <item> • If this exercise were to be repeated, more data from family support ground floor staff should be included. Perhaps it might be appropriate to engage staff in focus groups or interviews.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0019896439-8">Conclusion</hd> <p>In summary, a collaborative initiative in partnership with service users, professionals and the community facilitated the design and development of this model of responding to young people and families support needs following a tragic event, including suicide. Throughout the process, best practice and a solid theoretical framework was evident. The initiative itself, and the resulting model, is firmly embedded in the ecological perspective. Adopting an ecological approach provides an awareness of the overall context of the family, community and environment at large, including their interdependency. Furthermore, the initiative and the model reflects key family support principles, including a strengths-based perspective that is mindful of resilience as a characteristic of many young people and families, it strengthens informal support networks and provides a needs-led service that strives for the minimum intervention required (Canavan, Dolan, & Pinkerton, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]). While the initiative focused on the provision of support after tragic events, it acted as a catalyst and placed the issue of preventing the occurrence of such life events onto the agenda both among professionals and within the community. Ongoing development in the areas of prevention, intervention and postvention in respect of suicide and tragic events are necessary to further enhance the delivery of family support services.</p> <ref id="AN0019896439-9"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Barrera, M.Jr. 1986. "Distinctions between social support concepts, measures and models". In Parenting in poor environments: Stress, support and coping, Edited by: Ghate, D. and Hazel, N.London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bradford, S.1999. "Young people and transitions to adulthood". In Effective ways of working with children and their families, Edited by: Hill, M.London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brady, B., Dolan, P. and Canavan, J.2004. Working for children and families—Explaining good practice, Dublin: Department of Health and Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref23" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Broadhurst, K.2003. Engaging parents and carers with family support services: What can be learned from research on help-seeking. Child and Family Social Work, 8: 341–350.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U.1979. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design, Mass, U.S.A: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref28" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Canavan, J., Dolan, P., & Pinkerton, J.(Eds.). 2006. Family support for reflective practice. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref11" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, S. and Wills, T. A.1985. Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis, in G. Jack (2000), Ecological influences on parenting and child development. British Journal of Social Work, 30: 703–720.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref20" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cutrona, C. E.2000. "Social support principles for strengthening families: Messages from the USA". In Family support: Direction from diversity, Edited by: Canavan, J., Dolan, P. and Pinkerton, J.UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref18" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cutrona, C. E.(2002, July 25–26). Natural Support Networks in Family Support. Paper presented at the International Family Support Policy Symposium, National University of Ireland, Galway.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolan, P. and Holt, S.2002. What families want in family support: an Irish case study. Child Care in Practice, 8(4): 239–250.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garbarino, J.1981. "Childen and families in the social environment". In Person–environment practice: The social ecology of interpersonal helping, Edited by: Kemp, S. P., Whittaker, J. K. and Tracey, E. M.New York, U.S.A.: Aldine de Gruyter.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghate, D. and Hazel, N.2002. Parenting in poor environments—Stress, support and coping, London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, P.(1999). (Eds.), Community development foundation, InM.Hill (Ed.) Effective ways of working with children and their families. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jack, G.2000. Ecological influences on parenting and child development. British Journal of Social Work, 30: 703–720.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemp, S. P., Whittaker, J. K. and Tracy, E. M.1997. Person environment practice: The social ecology of interpersonal helping, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazarus, R. and Folkman, S.1984. "Stress, appraisal and coping". In Parenting in poor environments: Stress, support and coping, Edited by: Ghate, D. and Hazel, N.London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKeown, K.2000. A guide to what works in family support services for vulnerable families, Dublin, , Ireland: The Stationery Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKeon, K., Clarke, M. and Little, M.2003. Promoting the wellbeing of children and families: A study of family support services in Ireland, Interim report to Department of Health and Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, R.1995. "Preventing child maltreatment through social support: A critical analysis". In Parenting in poor environments: Stress, support and coping, Edited by: Ghate, D. and Hazel, N.London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, R. S.(1976). Transition states and other stressful situations: Their nature and programs for management. In G. Caplan & M. Killilea (Eds.), Support systems and mutual help: Multidisciplinary explorations. In J. Canavan, P. Dolan, & J. Pinkerton (Eds.), Family support: Direction from diversity. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, M. A.(1995). There are no free gifts! Social support and the need for reciprocity. In C. E. Cutrona (Ed.), Social support principles for strengthening families: Messages from the USA. In J. Canavan, P. Dolan, & J. Pinkerton (Eds.), Family support: Direction from diversity. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Susan Forde and Carmel Devaney</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ817994
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Postvention: A Community-Based Family Support Initiative and Model of Responding to Tragic Events, Including Suicide
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Forde%2C+Susan%22">Forde, Susan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Devaney%2C+Carmel%22">Devaney, Carmel</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Care+in+Practice%22"><i>Child Care in Practice</i></searchLink>. Jan 2006 12(1):53-61.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2006
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Needs%22">Family Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Programs%22">Family Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Suicide%22">Suicide</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prevention%22">Prevention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Development%22">Program Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Implementation%22">Program Implementation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coping%22">Coping</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Economically+Disadvantaged%22">Economically Disadvantaged</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Areas%22">Urban Areas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Programs%22">Community Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Support+Groups%22">Social Support Groups</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ireland%22">Ireland</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13575270500526303
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1357-5279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper provides an account of the design, development and implementation of a postvention model of responding to the needs of families within a community following the aftermath of a tragic event, including suicide. This model was developed for a specific disadvantaged urban community. The paper includes the context of the need for such an undertaking and discussion on the family support theories that underpin its development. A retrospective critique of the initiative and subsequent model is provided, including the inherent strengths and limitations and a description of further family support practice developments.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 21
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2008
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ817994
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ817994
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13575270500526303
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 53
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Family Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Suicide
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prevention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Implementation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coping
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Economically Disadvantaged
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Urban Areas
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Community Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Support Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ireland
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Postvention: A Community-Based Family Support Initiative and Model of Responding to Tragic Events, Including Suicide
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Forde, Susan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Devaney, Carmel
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2006
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1357-5279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 12
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Care in Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1