Psychological Interventions for Persons With Co-occurring Psychotic and Traumatic-Stress Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Psychotic and traumatic-stress symptoms commonly co-occur. Psychological interventions have increasingly targeted these co-occurring symptoms. However, information on their efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability is limited in this evolving field. STUDY DESIGN: After preregistration at PROSPERO (CRD42024553934), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions with persons aged 16+ reporting both psychotic and traumatic-stress symptoms. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Web of Science were searched in July 2024. We used the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB-2) for bias assessment. Random-effects models were used to synthesize clinical outcomes, while meta-regression was applied when 10 effect sizes were reported per outcome. STUDY RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs with 559 participants. Interventions primarily targeted trauma-related symptoms and were seemingly tolerable and acceptable, with low adverse event profiles and a dropout rate of 14%. In comparison to usual treatments and active control treatments, interventions significantly decreased traumatic-stress symptoms at post-treatment (g = 0.33, 95% CI [0.08, 0.57]), with meta-regression favoring interventions primarily employing exposure (gdiff = 0.59, [0.22, 0.97]). Interventions significantly decreased traumatic-stress symptoms at follow-up (g = 0.34, [0.12, 0.56]), but not total psychotic, positive, or negative symptoms at either timeframe. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that psychological interventions for co-occurring psychotic and traumatic-stress symptoms are safe, tolerable, and may reduce traumatic-stress symptoms when employing exposure. Considering the substantial risk of bias, the small number of trials, non-significant results for other clinical and functional outcomes, and unexplained heterogeneity, further research is needed.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.