{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033950617283950615, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012345679012345678, 'mean_word_length': 5.197452229299363, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Studying Synchronicity Related to Dead Loved Ones AKA After-Death Communication: Martha, What Do You Think?

and Hogan (2005) described a new understanding of and treatment for grief through induced after-death communication. The focus is not disengaging but engaging in “a changing, dynamic relationship with the loved one” (p. xix). Although this specific therapy uses the eye movement desensitization reprocessing procedure, the authors acknowledge that, for some people who are open and receptive on their own, after-death communication can arise spontaneously without the therapy. Much more work is needed to develop a unitary view of death and dying, grief and grieving in nursing. Rawnsley (1986) and McEvoy (1990) conducted early studies within a Rogerian perspective on death and dying. Todaro-Franceschi, Cody, and Pilkington, whose work is highlighted in this column, are now leading the way to a new understanding that can inform nursing practice and research.