Psychosocial interventions for survivors of rape and sexual assault experienced during adulthood.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse has lifelong impacts for mental health and well-being. Prolonged Exposure (PE), Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) and Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) are among the most common interventions offered to survivors to alleviate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychological impacts. Beyond such trauma-focused cognitive and behavioural approaches, there is a range of low-intensity interventions along with new and emerging non-exposure based approaches (trauma-sensitive yoga, Reconsolidation of Traumatic Memories and Lifespan Integration). This review presents a timely assessment of international evidence on any type of psychosocial intervention offered to individuals who experienced rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse as adults. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions on mental health and well-being for survivors of rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse experienced during adulthood. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 12 other databases and three trials registers. We also checked reference lists of included studies, contacted authors and experts, and ran forward citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any study that allocated individuals or clusters of individuals by a random or quasi-random method to a psychosocial intervention that promoted recovery and healing following exposure to rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse in those aged 18 years and above compared with no or minimal intervention, usual care, wait-list, pharmacological only or active comparison(s). We classified psychosocial interventions according to Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's psychological therapies list. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 studies (1991 to 2021) with 3992 participants randomly assigned to 60 experimental groups (3014; 76%) and 23 inactive comparator conditions (978, 24%). The experimental groups consisted of: 32 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT); 10 behavioural interventions; three integrative therapies; three humanist; five other psychologically oriented interventions; and seven other psychosocial interventions. Delivery involved 1 to 20 (median 11) sessions of traditional face-to-face (41) or other individual formats (four); groups (nine); or involved computer-only interaction (six). Most studies were conducted in the USA (n = 26); two were from South Africa; two from the Democratic Republic of the Congo; with single studies from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Five studies did not disclose a funding source, and all disclosed sources were public funding. Participants were invited from a range of settings: from the community, through the media, from universities and in places where people might seek help for their mental health (e.g. war veterans), in the aftermath of sexual trauma (sexual assault centres and emergency departments) or for problems that accompany the experience of sexual violence (e.g. sexual health/primary care clinics). Participants randomised were 99% women (3965 participants) with just 27 men. Half were Black, African or African-American (1889 participants); 40% White/Caucasian (1530 participants); and 10% represented a range of other ethnic backgrounds (396 participants). The weighted mean age was 35.9 years (standard deviation (SD) 9.6). Eighty-two per cent had experienced rape or sexual assault in adulthood (3260/3992). Twenty-two studies (61%) required fulfilling a measured PTSD diagnostic threshold for inclusion; however, 94% of participants (2239/2370) were reported as having clinically relevant PTSD symptoms at entry. The comparison of psychosocial interventions with inactive controls detected that there may be a beneficial effect at post-treatment favouring psychosocial interventions in reducing PTSD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.22 to -0.44; 16 studies, 1130 participants; low-certainty evidence; large effect size based on Cohen's D); and depression (SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.48; 12 studies, 901 participants; low-certainty evidence; large effect size). Psychosocial interventions, however, may not increase the risk of dropout from treatment compared to controls, with a risk ratio of 0.85 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.44; 5 studies, 242 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seven of the 23 studies (with 801 participants) comparing a psychosocial intervention to an inactive control reported on adverse events, with 21 events indicated. Psychosocial interventions may not increase the risk of adverse events compared to controls, with a risk ratio of 1.92 (95% CI 0.30 to 12.41; 6 studies; 622 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We conducted an assessment of risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool on a total of 49 reported results. A high risk of bias affected 43% of PTSD results; 59% for depression symptoms; 40% for treatment dropout; and one-third for adverse events. The greatest sources of bias were problems with randomisation and missing outcome data. Heterogeneity was also high, ranging from I2 = 30% (adverse events) to I2 = 87% (PTSD). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that survivors of rape, sexual violence and sexual abuse during adulthood may experience a large reduction in post-treatment PTSD symptoms and depressive symptoms after experiencing a psychosocial intervention, relative to comparison groups. Psychosocial interventions do not seem to increase dropout from treatment or adverse events/effects compared to controls. However, the number of dropouts and study attrition were generally high, potentially missing harms of exposure to interventions and/or research participation. Also, the differential effects of specific intervention types needs further investigation. We conclude that a range of behavioural and CBT-based interventions may improve the mental health of survivors of rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse in the short term. Therefore, the needs and preferences of individuals must be considered in selecting suitable approaches to therapy and support. The primary outcome in this review focused on the post-treatment period and the question about whether benefits are sustained over time persists. However, attaining such evidence from studies that lack an active comparison may be impractical and even unethical. Thus, we suggest that studies undertake head-to-head comparisons of different intervention types; in particular, of novel, emerging therapies, with one-year plus follow-up periods. Additionally, researchers should focus on the therapeutic benefits and costs for subpopulations such as male survivors and those living with complex PTSD.

Survivor, family and professional experiences of psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: It is well-established that experiencing sexual abuse and violence can have a range of detrimental impacts; a wide variety of interventions exist to support survivors in the aftermath. Understanding the experiences and perspectives of survivors receiving such interventions, along with those of their family members, and the professionals who deliver them is important for informing decision making as to what to offer survivors, for developing new interventions, and enhancing their acceptability. OBJECTIVES: This review sought to: 1. identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring the experiences of child and adult survivors of sexual abuse and violence, and their caregivers, regarding psychosocial interventions aimed at supporting survivors and preventing negative health outcomes in terms of benefits, risks/harms and barriers; 2. identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring the experiences of professionals who deliver psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence in terms of perceived benefits, risks/harms and barriers for survivors and their families/caregivers; 3. develop a conceptual understanding of how different factors influence uptake, dropout or completion, and outcomes from psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence; 4. develop a conceptual understanding of how features and types of interventions responded to the needs of different user/survivor groups (e.g. age groups; types of abuse exposure; migrant populations) and contexts (healthcare/therapeutic settings; low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)); 5. explore how the findings of this review can enhance our understanding of the findings from the linked and related reviews assessing the effectiveness of interventions aimed at supporting survivors and preventing negative health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: In August 2021 we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and nine other databases. We also searched for unpublished reports and qualitative reports of quantitative studies in a linked systematic review, together with reference checking, citation searches and contacting authors and other researchers to identify relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that were linked to a psychosocial intervention aimed at supporting survivors of sexual abuse and violence. Eligible studies focused on at least one of three participant groups: survivors of any age, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or [dis]ability who had received a psychosocial intervention; their carers, family members or partners; and professionals delivering such interventions. We placed no restrictions in respect of settings, locations, intervention delivery formats or durations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified. We extracted data using a form designed for this synthesis, then used this information and an appraisal of data richness and quality in order to stratify the studies using a maximum variation approach. We assessed the methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We coded directly onto the sampled papers using NVivo and synthesised data using a thematic synthesis methodology and used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We used a narrative synthesis and matrix model to integrate our qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) findings with those of intervention review findings. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 97 eligible studies and sampled 37 of them for our analysis. Most sampled studies were from high-income countries, with four from middle-income and two from low-income countries. In 27 sampled studies, the participants were survivors, in three they were intervention facilitators. Two included all three of our stakeholder groups, and five included two of our groups. The studies explored a wide range of psychosocial interventions, with only one type of intervention explored in more than one study. The review indicates that features associated with the context in which interventions were delivered had an impact on how individuals accessed and experienced interventions. This included organisational features, such as staff turnover, that could influence survivors' engagement with interventions; the setting or location in which interventions were delivered; and the characteristics associated with who delivered the interventions. Studies that assess the effectiveness of interventions typically assess their impact on mental health; however, as well as finding benefits to mental health, our QES found that study participants felt interventions also had positive impacts on their physical health, mood, understanding of trauma, interpersonal relationships and enabled them to re-engage with a wide range of areas in their lives. Participants explained that features of interventions and their contexts that best enabled them to benefit from interventions were also often things that could be a barrier to benefiting from interventions. For example, the relationship with the therapist, when open and warm was a benefit, but if such a relationship could not be achieved, it was a barrier. Survivors' levels of readiness and preparedness to both start and end interventions could have positive (if they were ready) or negative (if they were not) impacts. Study participants identified the potential risks and harms associated with completing interventions but felt that it was important to face and process trauma. Some elements of interventions were specific to the intervention type (e.g. faith-based interventions), or related to an experience of an intervention that held particular relevance to subgroups of survivors (e.g. minority groups); these issues could impact how individuals experienced delivering or receiving interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We had high or moderate confidence in all but one of our review findings. Further research in low- and middle-income settings, with male survivors of sexual abuse and violence and those from minority groups could strengthen the evidence for low and moderate confidence findings. We found that few interventions had published quantitative and qualitative evaluations. Since this QES has highlighted important aspects that could enable interventions to be more suitable for survivors, using a range of methodologies would provide valuable information that could enhance intervention uptake, completion and effectiveness. This study has shown that although survivors often found interventions difficult, they also appreciated that they needed to work through trauma, which they said resulted in a wide range of benefits. Therefore, listening to survivors and providing appropriate interventions, at the right time for them, can make a significant difference to their health and well-being.