9 November 2026 · Peer-reviewed scoping review
Paul McQuillan and Carolyn Drinkwater
Psychotherapy and Counselling Journal of Australia
DOI: 10.59158/001c.171912
Research question
How do people describe changes in purpose, values and relationships after a near-death experience (NDE), and how might counselling help them integrate those changes? This review examines earlier literature rather than recruiting a new group of experiencers.
Methods
The authors describe a JBI-informed scoping approach. Their search used concepts covering near death, meaning or spirituality, psychological support and after-effects. They manually assessed 108 PsycInfo results and selected 17 for detailed comment, with 13 further studies found through other routes. English-language and full-text-access requirements restricted selection. The text later refers to 26 articles; its different selection totals should not be treated as a single unambiguous study count.
What the review reports
The literature describes shifts in priorities, reduced fear of death and a search for purpose, alongside relationship strain, difficulty explaining the experience and prolonged distress. The authors discuss comparisons with other exceptional experiences and suggest that attention to personal meaning may be useful in counselling. These are interpretations of a mixed literature, not results from a new treatment trial.
Limits and context
The evidence includes small studies, case accounts and earlier reviews. Limited demographic reporting, Western emphasis, language restrictions and varied definitions constrain generalisation. The review does not establish that an NDE causes every later change, demonstrate consciousness surviving death, or test the effectiveness of a particular therapy. A powerful subjective experience and an explanation for its origin are different questions.
Source and review record
Read the open publisher article or publisher PDF. Publisher HTML methods, results, discussion and conclusion were reviewed; individual cited studies were not independently audited. The journal describes double-blind peer review. Publisher citation metadata and Crossref both give 9 November, rather than the 10 November date on a discovery site.
Checked 12 November 2026. No correction or retraction notice was observed on the article, and Crossref returned no update relation. No separate funding or conflict declaration was located in the HTML reviewed; this does not establish that none exists. The directory uses its existing UKPX paper icon; no publisher figures are reproduced.