Global research trends on grief intervention: A bibliometric and visualized analysis (2016–2025)
Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct a bibliometric analysis of research on grief interventions that was published between 2016 and 2025. Utilizing CiteSpace and VOSviewer software, the study examined the scientific collaboration networks, knowledge structures, and their evolutionary trends within this field. Methods: The literature data were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Two datasets were constructed: a broad dataset (Query A, 1,833 articles) and a core dataset (Query B, 241 articles). These datasets were constructed using complementary search strategies. This study employed the CiteSpace and VOSviewer software to conduct systematic analyses across a range of dimensions, including authors, countries/regions, institutions, journals, co-cited references, and keywords. Results: The analysis of publication output indicated a consistent increase throughout the observation period, with the broad dataset (Query A) reaching a peak of 294 papers in 2025. Within the core dataset (Query B), Kersting, Anette, emerged as the most prolific author, with eight publications. At the national level, the USA demonstrated the highest publication volume in both datasets and the highest betweenness centrality in Query A (0.21); in Query B, Switzerland exhibited the highest centrality (0.29). Preliminary institutional analysis identified two institutions as the primary contributors: University of London (Query A) and Leipzig University (Query B). A thorough analysis of the journal's content suggested that Omega - Journal of Death and Dying and Death Studies function as pivotal sources of knowledge within the field. The application of co-citation analysis yielded the identification of core knowledge foundations, including prolonged grief disorder and digital health interventions. A subsequent analysis of keywords identified numerous research clusters centered on themes such as prolonged grief, perinatal loss, and bereavement due to suicide, indicating a shift in focus from disease-oriented approaches toward a more expansive humanistic care model. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that grief intervention research has developed a relatively systematic knowledge framework, characterized by extensive international collaboration and diverse, continuously evolving research priorities. Future research should further investigate specific intervention mechanisms and strengthen interdisciplinary, multi-contextual studies. Consequently, content-level systematic reviews will be necessary to translate bibliometric findings into clinical guidance.