David T Turner1, Edel McGlanaghy2, Pim Cuijpers1, Mark van der Gaag3, Eirini Karyotaki1, Angus MacBeth2. 1. Department of Clinical Psychology, Vrije Universitiet, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Objective: Evidence suggests that social skills training (SST) is an efficacious intervention for negative symptoms in psychosis, whereas evidence of efficacy in other psychosis symptom domains is limited. The current article reports a comprehensive meta-analytic review of the evidence for SST across relevant outcome measures, control comparisons, and follow-up assessments. The secondary aim of this study was to identify and investigate the efficacy of SST subtypes. Methods: A systematic literature search identified 27 randomized controlled trials including N = 1437 participants. Trials assessing SST against active controls, treatment-as-usual (TAU), and waiting list control were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. A series of 70 meta-analytic comparisons provided effect sizes in Hedges' g. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Results: SST demonstrated superiority over TAU (g = 0.3), active controls (g = 0.2-0.3), and comparators pooled (g = 0.2-0.3) for negative symptoms, and over TAU (g = 0.4) and comparators pooled (g = 0.3) for general psychopathology. Superiority was indicated in a proportion of comparisons for all symptoms pooled and social outcome measures. SST subtype comparisons were underpowered, although social-cognitive approaches demonstrated superiority vs comparators pooled. SST treatment effects were maintained at proportion of follow-up comparisons. Conclusions: SST demonstrates a magnitude of effect for negative symptoms similar to those commonly reported for cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for positive symptoms, although unlike CBT, SST is not routinely recommended in treatment guidelines for psychological intervention. SST may have potential for wider implementation. Further stringent effectiveness research alongside wider pilot implementation of SST in community mental health teams is warranted.
Objective: Evidence suggests that social skills training (SST) is an efficacious intervention for negative symptoms in psychosis, whereas evidence of efficacy in other psychosis symptom domains is limited. The current article reports a comprehensive meta-analytic review of the evidence for SST across relevant outcome measures, control comparisons, and follow-up assessments. The secondary aim of this study was to identify and investigate the efficacy of SST subtypes. Methods: A systematic literature search identified 27 randomized controlled trials including N = 1437 participants. Trials assessing SST against active controls, treatment-as-usual (TAU), and waiting list control were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. A series of 70 meta-analytic comparisons provided effect sizes in Hedges' g. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Results: SST demonstrated superiority over TAU (g = 0.3), active controls (g = 0.2-0.3), and comparators pooled (g = 0.2-0.3) for negative symptoms, and over TAU (g = 0.4) and comparators pooled (g = 0.3) for general psychopathology. Superiority was indicated in a proportion of comparisons for all symptoms pooled and social outcome measures. SST subtype comparisons were underpowered, although social-cognitive approaches demonstrated superiority vs comparators pooled. SST treatment effects were maintained at proportion of follow-up comparisons. Conclusions: SST demonstrates a magnitude of effect for negative symptoms similar to those commonly reported for cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for positive symptoms, although unlike CBT, SST is not routinely recommended in treatment guidelines for psychological intervention. SST may have potential for wider implementation. Further stringent effectiveness research alongside wider pilot implementation of SST in community mental health teams is warranted.
Authors: Bruce E Wampold; Christoph Flückiger; A C Del Re; Noah E Yulish; Nickolas D Frost; Brian T Pace; Simon B Goldberg; Scott D Miller; Timothy P Baardseth; Kevin M Laska; Mark J Hilsenroth Journal: Psychother Res Date: 2017-01
Authors: William P Horan; Robert S Kern; Karina Shokat-Fadai; Mark J Sergi; Jonathan K Wynn; Michael F Green Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Sunny X Tang; Kevin H Seelaus; Tyler M Moore; Jerome Taylor; Carol Moog; David O'Connor; Marla Burkholder; Christian G Kohler; Paul M Grant; Dvora Eliash; Monica E Calkins; Raquel E Gur; Ruben C Gur Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2019-06-09 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Mario Maj; Jim van Os; Marc De Hert; Wolfgang Gaebel; Silvana Galderisi; Michael F Green; Sinan Guloksuz; Philip D Harvey; Peter B Jones; Dolores Malaspina; Patrick McGorry; Jouko Miettunen; Robin M Murray; Keith H Nuechterlein; Victor Peralta; Graham Thornicroft; Ruud van Winkel; Joseph Ventura Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Don Wei; Sherab Tsheringla; James C McPartland; A Z A Stephen Azariah Allsop Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 6.671
Authors: Marco Solmi; Giovanni Croatto; Giada Piva; Stella Rosson; Paolo Fusar-Poli; Jose M Rubio; Andre F Carvalho; Eduard Vieta; Celso Arango; Nicole R DeTore; Elizabeth S Eberlin; Kim T Mueser; Christoph U Correll Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 13.437
Authors: Jack J Blanchard; Alexandra Andrea; Ryan D Orth; Christina Savage; Melanie E Bennett Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 3.222