Back

Empirical Validation and Predictive Utility of the Perinatal Grief Scale in Men after Perinatal Loss

Ravaldi, C.; Mosconi, L.; Nespoli, A.; Fumagalli, S.; Vannacci, A.

2026-06-18 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.06.16.26355784 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background. The Perinatal Grief Scale (PGS) is a widely used instrument for assessing grief following pregnancy loss, yet no study has validated it specifically in men despite documented use in several studies. This gap is critical given fathers' persistent underrepresentation in perinatal bereavement research and the absence of empirically supported screening thresholds for this population. Methods. This cross-sectional validation study used data from the OPALE project (Observatory on PerinatAL hEalth) conducted by the CiaoLapo Foundation in Italy. Among 276 fathers who experienced stillbirth or miscarriage, we examined criterion validity by testing the association between PGS scores and trauma-related symptomatology assessed via three validated instruments: the Revised Impact of Event Scale (RIES, n=103), National Stressful Events Survey Short Scale (NSESSS, n=95), and SCL-90 (n=173). We systematically tested multiple threshold combinations to identify optimal discriminative performance. Results. The PGS demonstrated excellent criterion validity. The optimal threshold (PGS >=92) showed sensitivity 81.0%, specificity 81.8%, and Youden's J index 0.628. Fathers scoring >=92 had 19.12 times the odds of high trauma symptoms (95% CI: 9.35 to 39.14, p<0.001). ROC analysis yielded AUC=0.829 (95% CI: 0.778 to 0.880). Associations remained robust across all three trauma instruments in stratified analyses and after adjusting for time since loss, father's age, living children, and loss type. Conclusion. This is the first men-specific validation of the PGS, demonstrating strong criterion validity and establishing a clinically meaningful screening threshold (>=92) for identifying fathers at elevated risk following perinatal loss.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Affective Disorders
92 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.8%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.8%
3
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.4%
4
BJPsych Open
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
European Psychiatry
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
6
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
7
Psychiatry Research
41 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.0%
8
Psychological Medicine
88 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.3%
9
Social Science & Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.3%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
11
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.0%
12
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
13
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
14
Psychoneuroendocrinology
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
15
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
17
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
18
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
19
BMC Psychiatry
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Journal of Psychiatric Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
22
Molecular Psychiatry
282 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
24
Brain and Behavior
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
25
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
26
Frontiers in Psychiatry
87 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
27
The British Journal of Psychiatry
23 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
28
Translational Psychiatry
260 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%