Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2020 Sep;24(43):1-312. doi: 10.3310/hta24430.
People with a history of complex traumatic events typically experience trauma and stressor disorders and additional mental comorbidities. It is not known if existing evidence-based treatments are effective and acceptable for this group of people.
To identify candidate psychological and non-pharmacological treatments for future research.
Mixed-methods systematic review.
Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a history of complex traumatic events.
Psychological interventions versus control or active control; pharmacological interventions versus placebo.
Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, common mental health problems and attrition.
Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1937 onwards); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (from inception); EMBASE (1974 to 2017 week 16); International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 onwards); MEDLINE and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (1946 to present); Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) (1987 onwards); PsycINFO (1806 to April week 2 2017); and Science Citation Index (1900 onwards). Searches were conducted between April and August 2017.
Eligible studies were singly screened and disagreements were resolved at consensus meetings. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and a bespoke version of a quality appraisal checklist used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. A meta-analysis was conducted across all populations for each intervention category and for population subgroups. Moderators of effectiveness were assessed using metaregression and a component network meta-analysis. A qualitative synthesis was undertaken to summarise the acceptability of interventions with the relevance of findings assessed by the GRADE-CERQual checklist.
One hundred and four randomised controlled trials and nine non-randomised controlled trials were included. For the qualitative acceptability review, 4324 records were identified and nine studies were included. The population subgroups were veterans, childhood sexual abuse victims, war affected, refugees and domestic violence victims. Psychological interventions were superior to the control post treatment for reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (standardised mean difference -0.90, 95% confidence interval -1.14 to -0.66; number of trials = 39) and also for associated symptoms of depression, but not anxiety. Trauma-focused therapies were the most effective interventions across all populations for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Multicomponent and trauma-focused interventions were effective for negative self-concept. Phase-based approaches were also superior to the control for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression and showed the most benefit for managing emotional dysregulation and interpersonal problems. Only antipsychotic medication was effective for reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms; medications were not effective for mental comorbidities. Eight qualitative studies were included. Interventions were more acceptable if service users could identify benefits and if they were delivered in ways that accommodated their personal and social needs.
Assessments about long-term effectiveness of interventions were not possible. Studies that included outcomes related to comorbid psychiatric states, such as borderline personality disorder, and populations from prisons and humanitarian crises were under-represented.
Evidence-based psychological interventions are effective and acceptable post treatment for reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and depression and anxiety in people with complex trauma. These interventions were less effective in veterans and had less of an impact on symptoms associated with complex post-traumatic stress disorder.
Definitive trials of phase-based versus non-phase-based interventions with long-term follow-up for post-traumatic stress disorder and associated mental comorbidities.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055523.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
有复杂创伤经历的人通常会经历创伤和应激障碍以及其他精神合并症。目前尚不清楚现有的循证治疗方法对这群人是否有效和可接受。
确定未来研究的候选心理和非药物治疗方法。
混合方法系统评价。
年龄≥ 18 岁、有复杂创伤经历的成年人。
心理干预与对照或活性对照;药物干预与安慰剂。
创伤后应激障碍症状、常见心理健康问题和脱落。
Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature(CINAHL)(1937 年以后);Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL)(从创刊号开始);EMBASE(1974 年至 2017 年第 16 周);International Pharmaceutical Abstracts(1970 年以后);MEDLINE 和 MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations(1946 年至今);Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress(PILOTS)(1987 年以后);PsycINFO(1806 年至 2017 年 4 月周 2);和 Science Citation Index(1900 年以后)。搜索于 2017 年 4 月至 8 月进行。
符合条件的研究单独进行筛选,如果存在分歧,将在共识会议上解决。使用 Cochrane 风险偏倚工具和 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 使用的专门版质量评估检查表评估风险偏倚。对每个干预类别和人群亚组进行了所有人群的荟萃分析。使用元回归和组件网络荟萃分析评估了有效性的调节因素。对干预措施的可接受性进行了定性综合,通过 GRADE-CERQual 检查表评估了研究结果的相关性。
共纳入 104 项随机对照试验和 9 项非随机对照试验。对于定性可接受性审查,共确定了 4324 条记录,纳入了 9 项研究。人群亚组包括退伍军人、儿童性虐待受害者、受战争影响的人、难民和家庭暴力受害者。心理干预在治疗后减少创伤后应激障碍症状方面优于对照组(标准化均数差-0.90,95%置信区间-1.14 至-0.66;试验数量= 39),也能减少相关的抑郁症状,但对焦虑没有影响。创伤聚焦疗法是所有人群中治疗创伤后应激障碍和抑郁最有效的干预措施。多组分和创伤聚焦干预措施对消极的自我概念有效。基于阶段的方法在治疗创伤后应激障碍和抑郁方面也优于对照组,并且对管理情绪失调和人际关系问题最有益。只有抗精神病药物对减少创伤后应激障碍症状有效;药物对精神合并症无效。纳入了 8 项定性研究。如果服务使用者能够识别出益处,并且干预措施以满足他们的个人和社会需求的方式提供,那么干预措施更能被接受。
不可能对干预措施的长期效果进行评估。包括与合并精神状态相关的结局(如边缘型人格障碍)的研究以及来自监狱和人道主义危机的人群代表性不足。
有循证依据的心理干预措施在治疗后有效且可接受,可降低有复杂创伤经历者的创伤后应激障碍症状和抑郁及焦虑症状。这些干预措施在退伍军人中的效果较差,对复杂创伤后应激障碍相关症状的影响较小。
针对创伤后应激障碍及其相关精神合并症的基于阶段的干预措施与非基于阶段的干预措施的确定性试验,进行长期随访。
本研究由英国国家卫生与保健优化研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估计划资助,并将在 ; Vol. 24, No. 43 中全文发表。请访问 NIHR 期刊库网站以获取更多项目信息。