Increased mortality in parents bereaved in the first year of their child's life
- 1Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, York, UK
- 2Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
- Correspondence to Mairi Harper, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK; mh845{at}york.ac.uk
Abstract
Objective To identify the relative risk (RR) of mortality in bereaved parents compared with non-bereaved counterparts.
Design Retrospective data linkage study.
Setting United Kingdom, 1971–2006.
Participants A random sample from death registrations (5%) of parents who had a live birth where the infant lived beyond its first year of life (non-bereaved parents) and parents who had experienced a stillbirth or the death of a child in its first year of life (bereaved parents) between 1971 and 2006.
Main outcome measures Death or widowhood of the parent.
Results Bereaved parents in Scotland (n=738) were more than twice as likely to die in the first 15 years after their child's death than non-bereaved parents (n=50 132), p<0.005. Bereaved mothers in England and Wales (n=481) were more than four times as likely to die in the first 15 years after their child's birth than non-bereaved parents (n=30 956), p<0.001. The mortality risk for bereaved mothers compared with non-bereaved mothers, followed up for 25 years after death, was 1.5 (bereaved n=745, non-bereaved n=36 434), p<0.005. When followed up for 35 years, the risk of mortality for bereaved mothers (n=1120) was 1.2 times that of non-bereaved mothers (n=36 062), p<0.005.
Conclusions Bereaved parents who experience stillbirth or infant death have markedly increased mortality compared with non-bereaved parents, up to 25 years (mean) after the death of their child. However, the RR reduces over time.
Footnotes
-
Funding This research was funded under a PhD studentship from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland.
-
Competing interests None.
-
Ethics approval The study received ethical approval from the Department of Psychology Ethics Committee within the University of Stirling.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
- Accepted 26 July 2011.
- Published Online First 1 September 2011
- Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions








