Psychological interventions for persons with co-occurring psychotic and traumatic-stress symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Psychological interventions for persons with co-occurring psychotic and traumatic-stress symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
Niemeyer, Helen
e5b3206b-783e-4172-bf82-ee49a8b4fea2
Opper, Felix
e80d9028-a038-4d03-b24b-5a66f906f70a
Sabé, Michel
deaa2836-ca86-4090-94f8-e0114d98216f
Holmes, Emily A.
a6379ab3-b182-45f8-87c9-3e07e90fe469
Böge, Kerem
f7bac77b-cbe2-47e9-8d26-bd8c85ac7c01
Niemeyer, Helen
e5b3206b-783e-4172-bf82-ee49a8b4fea2
Opper, Felix
e80d9028-a038-4d03-b24b-5a66f906f70a
Sabé, Michel
deaa2836-ca86-4090-94f8-e0114d98216f
Holmes, Emily A.
a6379ab3-b182-45f8-87c9-3e07e90fe469
Böge, Kerem
f7bac77b-cbe2-47e9-8d26-bd8c85ac7c01
Niemeyer, Helen, Opper, Felix, Sabé, Michel, Holmes, Emily A. and Böge, Kerem
(2025)
Psychological interventions for persons with co-occurring psychotic and traumatic-stress symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Schizophrenia Bulletin.
(doi:10.1093/schbul/sbaf185).
Abstract
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.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 23 September 2005
e-pub ahead of print date: 14 December 2025
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 507811
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/507811
ISSN: 0586-7614
PURE UUID: 5597c431-28b6-47b4-a306-cb89310bf982
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 06 Jan 2026 17:54
Last modified: 08 Jan 2026 03:28
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Helen Niemeyer
Author:
Felix Opper
Author:
Michel Sabé
Author:
Emily A. Holmes
Author:
Kerem Böge
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics