The #1 AI-powered therapy

notes – done in seconds

Try for free

The #1 AI-powered therapy notes – done in seconds

Try for free

This blog is brought to you by YUNG Sidekick –

the #1 AI-powered therapy notes – done in seconds

This blog is brought to you by YUNG Sidekick — the #1 AI-powered therapy notes – done in seconds

Try for free – no credit card required

Home

Blog

Therapy

Grief Without a Code: How Culture, Religion, and Social Norms Shape the Clinical Presentation of Loss

Stanley Efrem

Feb 10, 2026

Two bereaved individuals sit before you. The first weeps quietly, composed and controlled. The second wails openly, their grief raw and unrestrained. Both have lost someone precious.

Yet your diagnostic manual might label one as experiencing normal bereavement while flagging the other for Major Depressive Episode. The difference? Cultural context determines which expression appears "healthy" and which seems "pathological."

The ICD-10 grief codes—Z63.4 (Bereavement, Uncomplicated) [1] [25] and F43.81 (Prolonged Grief Disorder) [25]—promise universal diagnostic clarity. They deliver something else entirely.

These codes embed Western assumptions about proper grief duration, acceptable emotional intensity, and normal mourning behaviors. Apply them without cultural awareness, and your diagnostic tool becomes a source of clinical error. Worse, it can erase the very cultural practices that help your patients heal.

This article addresses a critical challenge facing mental health professionals today. How do you maintain diagnostic accuracy while respecting diverse cultural expressions of grief?

You'll discover why current ICD-10 grief coding systems fall short across cultures. More importantly, you'll gain practical frameworks for culturally competent grief assessment that serves your patients better than standard diagnostic approaches alone.

The Western Model of Grief: A Brief Genealogy of Normal

Current ICD-10 grief codes didn't emerge from cultural consensus. They built upon specific theoretical models developed within Western psychiatric frameworks over the past century. These models established what "normal" grief should look like—and by extension, what appears pathological.

Understanding this history reveals why modern diagnostic codes struggle across cultures. Three influential models shaped today's grief criteria, each carrying distinct assumptions about healthy mourning.

The Freudian Legacy: From Mourning and Melancholia

Freud's 1917 essay "Mourning and Melancholia" established Western psychology's core grief principle: successful mourning requires severing emotional attachment to the deceased. This "letting go" model defined healthy grief as time-limited, ending with decisive detachment. Inability to detach signaled pathological melancholia.

The model assumed individual autonomy. Healthy mourners maintained clear boundaries between self and other. Death demanded complete emotional withdrawal from the deceased to preserve psychological independence.

Personal loss changed Freud's perspective. After his daughter Sophie died in 1920 and grandson Heinele in 1923, he confronted grief's actual endlessness. His 1923 work "The Ego and the Id" redefined identification with the deceased as normal mourning, not pathology. He described the ego as "a precipitate of abandoned object-cathexes"—permanently shaped by those we've lost [25].

This revision acknowledged what his earlier work denied: mourning doesn't end with detachment. Continued connection with the deceased represents "the sole condition" under which we accept loss [25]. Yet Western psychology took decades to integrate ongoing bonds into clinical practice.

Current grief ICD-10 codes inherited primarily Freud's early detachment model, not his later insights about perpetual connection.

The Kübler-Ross Stages Model

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross introduced five grief stages in 1969: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. This DABDA model achieved remarkable cultural penetration. 30% of the general public believed grief definitely progresses through these stages, compared with 8% of mental health professionals [2]. Another 38% of each group considered it probably true [2].

The model's popularity masked fundamental flaws. Kübler-Ross developed these stages from interviews with terminally ill patients facing their own deaths—not bereaved individuals mourning others. Her work addressed anticipatory grief and terminal diagnosis adjustment. Applying this to bereavement lacked empirical validation.

No study has proven stages of grief actually exist as described. Research by Bisconti and colleagues found emotional wellbeing oscillates following loss rather than progressing linearly [2]. Wortman and Silver challenged claims that all bereaved individuals reach acceptance [2].

The prescriptive interpretation caused documented harm. Bereaved individuals felt they were "not grieving correctly" when their experiences deviated from expected sequences. The word "stages" implies orderly progression, encouraging rigid application despite Kübler-Ross's later disclaimers [2].

Kübler-Ross herself expressed disappointment, stating the model had become "too prescriptive" and failed to appreciate individual experience [2]. Yet five stages remain embedded in medical school curricula without credible evidence [2].

The Biomedical Turn: Grief as Pathology

Recent developments medicalized grief entirely. Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD) entered both ICD-11 and DSM-5-TR, establishing criteria that transform extended mourning into discrete mental disorder. These criteria require specific symptom duration—typically 12 months in adults—and particular manifestations like identity disruption and intense yearning.

This diagnostic expansion raises validity concerns. The distinction between prolonged grief disorder and normal grief remains unclear, with no consensus definition of normal grief [9]. Without agreement on normalcy, distinguishing pathology becomes arbitrary.

Cultural validity presents another gap. Most PGD evidence derives from Western countries and East Asia [9]. Asian bereaved adults generally report higher prolonged grief symptoms than European and American adults, yet Balinese adults bereaved by traffic accidents reported remarkably low levels due to cultural rituals [9].

The estimated prevalence of pathological grief runs very high among people experiencing unnatural deaths [9]. For parents losing children or individuals experiencing sudden traumatic loss, severe persistent grief may represent normal response to abnormal events. Diagnosing these individuals with PGD risks labeling normal grief variations as medical disorders.

The biomedical model imports Western assumptions about grief temporality, emotional expression, and individual boundaries directly into diagnostic codes now applied globally.

When Culture Rewrites the Diagnostic Manual: Case Studies in Divergence

Theoretical models meet real patients in your office. The encounter exposes fundamental flaws in Western grief frameworks. Four distinct patterns reveal how diagnostic codes built on Euro-American assumptions systematically misread grief across cultures.

Case 1: The Temporality of Grief (East Asia vs. North America)

Prolonged Grief Disorder sets a 12-month threshold. Beyond this point, mourning becomes pathological. This timeline crumbles when applied to East and Southeast Asian cultures, where three-year mourning periods represent sacred tradition [1]. Egyptian families grieving tearfully after seven years practice healthy, normal behavior [25]. Western psychiatry would classify identical expressions as disorders.

Korean funeral practices illustrate this temporal disconnect. Families spend three days at funeral sites, greeting visitors through ritualistic bowing—twice to the deceased's photo, once to mourners, sharing provided food [25]. No eulogies interrupt these prescribed actions. Grief flows through ritual, not verbal processing.

Asian and Asian-American populations draw comfort from physical presence without discussing stressful experiences [25]. European-Americans actively share problems and request assistance [25]. When Koreans used explicit social support, their life satisfaction increased—along with shame and regret from disrupting relationship harmony [25].

Your training emphasizes verbal emotional disclosure as healthy grief work. Silent communal presence appears avoidant. Meanwhile, ongoing ancestral veneration practices look like inability to detach. The bereaved individual following cultural protocols appears stuck in your assessment framework.

Case 2: The Expression of Grief (Mediterranean/Middle Eastern vs. Northern European)

Emotional expression intensity creates another diagnostic divide. Islamic mourning practices require burial within 24 hours, followed by 40-day mourning periods filled with communal prayers and support [2]. The emphasis falls on accepting death as divine will while community provides sustained presence.

African funeral traditions embrace music, dancing, drumming, and expressive wailing [2]. Some cultures explicitly encourage loud, collective grieving to process communal loss [1]. This expressive mourning serves dual purposes—farewell and vital healing for the bereaved.

Balinese mourning demands the opposite approach. Tearfulness receives discouragement. Family tears must not fall on the deceased's body, as this supposedly assigns the person a poor place in heaven [25]. Prolonged crying risks invoking malevolent spirits and burdening the soul with unhappiness [25].

You face an impossible diagnostic position. Loud public wailing represents pathological emotional dysregulation in one framework, sacred duty in another. Restrained mourning signals healthy coping or dangerous emotional suppression depending entirely on cultural context.

Case 3: Somatic Manifestations of Grief (South Asia)

Physical expression of psychological distress creates the most consequential diagnostic gap. Research across populations identifies somatic symptoms as primary grief indicators—completely absent from ICD-11 Prolonged Grief Disorder definitions [2]. Among bereaved Hungarian adults, 15% of males and 27% of females showed clinically relevant somatic symptom distress levels [2].

Cambodian refugees present culturally specific somatic grief syndromes. Intrusive memories of the deceased increase somatic symptoms attributed to 'khyàl attack' (wind attack), which proves highly prevalent and predictive of distress [2]. Cross-cultural depression research confirms distinct somatic profiles. Greek patients present more hyperventilation compared to Australian patients who report more insomnia [2]. Iranian validation of the Beck Depression Inventory revealed a separate somatic factor not found in Western validations [2].

South Asian populations particularly emphasize somatic expression. Cultural factors dictate that emotional problems arising in family contexts should not be discussed outside the family. Physicians get consulted only for physical symptoms [7]. Turkish migrants accessing health support all reported psychological distress when asked directly, yet somatic symptoms were spontaneously reported more frequently [2]. For many Asian cultures, family and group harmony supersedes individual expression of grief or psychological distress [7].

Your mood-focused questions miss the primary language of suffering. That complaint of crushing chest weight may represent literal somatic experience of loss, not metaphorical depression.

Case 4: The Role of Ritual and Community (African and Indigenous Cultures)

Western grief work centers individual introspection. African and Indigenous traditions position grief as fundamentally communal. Elaborate funeral rituals lasting days or weeks provide culturally sanctioned containers for loss [27]. The deceased's spirit remains present, watching over the living and ensuring proper ritual performance [27].

Ghanaian fantasy coffins, shaped to reflect the deceased's profession or achievements, turn funerals into vibrant celebrations of individual legacy within broader community context [28]. Toraja people in Indonesia treat deceased relatives as ill rather than dead between death and funeral, bringing food and keeping company [25]. Across sub-Saharan Africa, the dead become spirits remaining in the living world on Earth, thought of as the living dead who may appear in dreams [25].

Māori tangihanga practices allocate dedicated time for grieving and mourning with rituals sending the spirit onward before body preparation [25]. Extended family and wider community involvement affirms social bonds and shared obligations in grief and remembrance [1].

Your patient processing grief through these communal channels may present without identifiable symptoms on Western assessment tools. Not because they avoid grief, but because they express it through structures invisible to biomedical frameworks.

The Clinical Crossroads: Applying ICD-10 in a Multicultural World

You face a diagnostic dilemma every day. ICD-11 acknowledges this challenge with a cultural caveat for Prolonged Grief Disorder. Symptoms must exceed what's "normally expected for the individual's cultural or religious context" [4].

This sounds reasonable. The reality proves far more complex.

The manual offers no clear guidance on applying this cultural caveat [4]. How do you distinguish normal bereavement from disordered symptoms across different cultures [4]? The answer remains frustratingly unclear.

Psychiatry once assumed that North American and European symptom patterns applied globally [4]. Recent research reveals a different truth. Symptom content, structure, duration, and treatment response vary significantly across cultures [4]. What counts as "normal" depends entirely on cultural norms [4].

The Risk of Over-Pathologization in Diverse Populations

Your diagnostic system expects you to become an instant cultural expert. You must judge what's normal for each patient's background while managing your clinical workload [8]. Standard checklists offer no guidance on cultural factors or how they might shape your patient's grief presentation [8].

Consider Asian bereaved adults, who typically report higher prolonged grief symptom levels than their European and American counterparts [9]. Does this indicate genuine pathology requiring intervention?

Not necessarily. Chinese cultural values prescribe intense mourning to honor ancestors and demonstrate filial piety [10]. Showing quick recovery on a grief questionnaire might violate deeply held cultural values about respecting the deceased [10].

Japanese healthcare workers raise similar concerns about yearning as a diagnostic symptom [10]. The butsudan practice—ritual altar worship for deceased loved ones—continues for years in Japanese society [10]. Apply Western timeframes, and you risk labeling sacred practice as psychiatric pathology.

The Risk of Under-Diagnosis Across Cultural Contexts

The opposite error carries equal danger. You might dismiss genuine Major Depressive Episode as "normal cultural grief" because symptoms align with cultural expectations.

Indigenous populations in Australia and New Zealand face elevated grief reaction risks due to high mortality rates, suicide, and trauma exposure [9]. Yet their holistic health perspectives may prevent standard instruments from detecting Prolonged Grief Disorder indicators [9].

Balinese adults bereaved by traffic accidents showed remarkably low symptom levels [9]. Cultural rituals and beliefs reduced negative emotion reporting, apparently preventing prolonged grief development [9].

This raises a crucial question: Does low symptom reporting reflect genuine cultural resilience, or does it hide suffering that current frameworks cannot detect?

The Challenge of Assessment Tools and Cultural Bias

No culturally adapted questionnaires exist for prolonged grief disorder [4]. Available grief measurement tools vary significantly in cultural context and development quality [11]. Without adequate assessment measures, determining whether Prolonged Grief Disorder follows universal or culturally relative patterns remains impossible [4].

Current ICD-11 definitions exclude somatic symptoms entirely. Yet multiple cultural groups express grief primarily through physical symptoms [4]. This exclusion systematically ignores how South Asian, Mediterranean, and many other populations naturally communicate their suffering.

Two approaches exist for developing culturally sensitive tools. Etic approaches develop questionnaires outside the target culture. Emic approaches develop them from within [4]. Debate continues over which provides valid understanding of disorder [4].

As long as assessment relies on Western-developed instruments merely translated into other languages, diagnostic accuracy across cultures will remain compromised.

A Framework for Culturally Competent Grief Assessment

You don't need to abandon diagnostic codes to practice culturally competent grief assessment. Instead, supplement them with structured frameworks that capture what standardized instruments miss.

These practical tools help you distinguish between cultural mourning practices and clinical pathology, ensuring accurate diagnosis while respecting diverse grief expressions.

Step 1: Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI)

The DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview gives you a structured approach to explore your patient's cultural understanding of their illness, social support systems, and healthcare relationships. For grief assessment specifically, the Bereavement and Grief Cultural Formulation Interview (BG-CFI) facilitates culturally sensitive assessment of individuals experiencing Prolonged Grief Disorder [12].

This supplementary module has been tested with bereaved refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers, proving both feasible and clinically useful for participants and clinicians [12] [13]. The BG-CFI addresses cultural conflicts between country of origin norms and host culture expectations, helping you establish a shared understanding of psychopathology through collaborative dialogue.

Step 2: The Explanatory Model Approach (Kleinman's Questions)

Psychiatrist and anthropologist Arthur Kleinman developed specific questions that reveal your patient's worldview about their experience: What do you call this problem? What caused it? Why did it start when it did? What does your sickness do to your body? How severe is it? What do you fear most? What problems has it caused? What treatment should you receive [14]?

These questions uncover local illness categories, spiritual or social causation beliefs, and treatment expectations that standard diagnostic interviews overlook.

Step 3: Differentiating Cultural Practice from Psychopathology

Cultural clinical interviews help you understand whether presentations constitute psychopathology or normal grieving within specific cultural and religious contexts [15]. Religious beliefs and practices connect strongly to culture and account for variations in grieving processes [3].

Detect these variations early when applying diagnostic criteria. Grief's expression varies dramatically across cultures despite its universal experience [3].

Step 4: The Collaborative Care Model Revisited

Culturally competent grief care recognizes community healers, religious leaders, and elders as partners in healthy grieving. Work alongside traditional support systems rather than replacing them.

Know when to step back and when clinical intervention becomes necessary. Your role shifts from primary provider to collaborative support within existing cultural frameworks.

ICD-10 Codes for Grief: Z63.4, F43.81, and Their Limitations

The current diagnostic framework offers two primary codes for grief-related presentations. Understanding their scope and limitations helps you navigate the gap between standardized criteria and clinical reality.

Z63.4 Bereavement (Uncomplicated): The "Normal" Grief Code

ICD-10 code Z63.4 addresses "Disappearance and death of family member" [6]. This billable code became effective October 1, 2015, covering situations where grief remains within expected parameters [6].

Z63.4 does not diagnose a mental disorder. Instead, it documents "normal bereavement reactions appropriate to the culture of the individual concerned and not usually exceeding six months in duration" [16].

That six-month timeframe reveals the code's Western origins immediately.

F43.81 Prolonged Grief Disorder: When Mourning Becomes Pathology

Introduced in 2023, F43.81 represents the diagnostic line between normal grief and clinical disorder [17]. The criteria require symptoms persisting at least 12 months for adults and 6 months for children [18].

Research suggests 4-15% of bereaved adults meet PGD criteria [18]. Yet diagnostic algorithms produce prevalence rates ranging from 1.8% to 47.2% across East Asian studies [3]. This variation signals fundamental measurement problems across populations.

Complicated Grief Under F43.81

F43.81 encompasses multiple grief-related conditions: complicated grief, complicated grief disorder, and persistent complex bereavement disorder [17]. The code creates diagnostic dilemmas when cultural practices appear pathological under Western criteria.

Chinese filial piety requires intense, prolonged mourning to honor ancestors. Japanese butsudan altar worship continues for years after loss. These sacred obligations risk being labeled as pathological yearning [3].

The Systematic Gaps

Current codes create blind spots that affect diagnostic accuracy:

Somatic Exclusion ICD-11 Prolonged Grief Disorder criteria exclude somatic symptoms entirely [3]. This omission renders invisible the primary grief language for South Asian, Mediterranean, and many other populations.

Assessment Tool Gaps No culturally adapted questionnaires exist for prolonged grief disorder assessment [5]. Existing tools carry Western developmental assumptions that may not transfer across cultures.

Limited Validation Diagnostic criteria derive predominantly from Western research samples [3] [5]. Their validity beyond the Global North remains unestablished.

These limitations place you in difficult clinical situations. Standard codes may pathologize normal cultural practices while missing genuine distress expressed through unfamiliar channels.

Conclusion

ICD-10 grief codes serve their administrative purpose. They provide the billing structure and diagnostic framework your practice requires. Yet these codes tell only part of the story.

Your clinical expertise matters more than any diagnostic manual. The codes capture symptoms and timeframes. You capture the human experience behind those symptoms.

Effective grief assessment requires fluency in two languages. One speaks the structured criteria of diagnostic manuals. The other speaks your patient's cultural world—their rituals, beliefs, and ways of expressing loss.

The goal is not abandoning diagnostic codes. It's seeing through them to the grieving person before you.

Your patients bring their grief wrapped in cultural practices that may span years, express through physical symptoms, or manifest in communal rituals. When you recognize these expressions as healing rather than pathology, you provide care that honors both clinical precision and human dignity.

This represents more than clinical skill. It's an ethical imperative for every mental health professional working in our interconnected world.

Your culturally competent assessment can mean the difference between accurate diagnosis and clinical error, between therapeutic alliance and cultural misunderstanding, between healing and harm.

The diagnostic manual provides the framework. Your cultural competence provides the wisdom to use it well.

Key Takeaways

Understanding grief across cultures reveals critical gaps in standardized diagnostic approaches that can lead to both over-pathologizing normal cultural practices and missing genuine mental health concerns.

• ICD-10 grief codes reflect Western assumptions about "normal" mourning duration and expression, potentially misdiagnosing culturally appropriate grief practices as mental disorders.

• Cultural grief expressions vary dramatically - from three-year Asian mourning periods to expressive Mediterranean wailing to somatic South Asian symptoms - yet current codes exclude these variations.

• Clinicians must supplement standard diagnostic tools with Cultural Formulation Interviews and Kleinman's explanatory model questions to capture patients' cultural understanding of their grief experience.

• Effective grief assessment requires "bilingual fluency" - understanding both diagnostic criteria and the patient's cultural worldview to differentiate normal cultural mourning from clinical pathology.

• Somatic symptoms represent the primary grief language for many cultures but are entirely excluded from current ICD-11 Prolonged Grief Disorder definitions, creating systematic diagnostic blind spots.

The path forward requires culturally humble practice that honors both clinical precision and cultural wisdom, recognizing that grief's universal experience manifests through profoundly diverse cultural expressions that deserve clinical respect rather than diagnostic erasure.

FAQs

How do cultural and religious beliefs affect how people experience and express grief?

Cultural and religious beliefs provide structure and meaning during the grieving process, influencing everything from the duration of mourning to how emotions are expressed. These beliefs offer coping mechanisms and rituals that help people navigate loss in ways that align with their values and traditions, creating a sense of order during a chaotic time.

Why do grief expressions vary so dramatically across different cultures?

Grief manifests differently across cultures due to varying social norms, religious practices, and beliefs about death and the afterlife. For example, some cultures encourage loud, expressive mourning as a healing process, while others value restrained emotional displays. These differences extend to mourning duration, with some traditions prescribing brief periods while others maintain multi-year observances.

What challenges do clinicians face when diagnosing grief disorders in multicultural populations?

Clinicians risk either over-diagnosing normal cultural practices as mental disorders or missing genuine pathology by dismissing symptoms as "just cultural." Standard diagnostic tools often fail to account for culturally specific grief expressions like somatic symptoms or extended mourning periods, making it difficult to distinguish between culturally appropriate grief and clinical conditions requiring intervention.

What are the main limitations of current ICD-10 grief codes?

Current ICD-10 grief codes are built on Western assumptions about "normal" grief duration (typically 12 months) and exclude somatic symptoms entirely, which are primary grief expressions in many cultures. The codes lack culturally adapted assessment tools and fail to provide clear guidance on how to apply diagnostic criteria across diverse cultural contexts.

How can healthcare providers improve their assessment of grief across different cultures?

Providers should use structured tools like the Cultural Formulation Interview and Kleinman's explanatory model questions to understand patients' cultural perspectives on their grief. This involves