Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:45:53.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Psychosocial and behavioural interventions for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia: a systematic review of efficacy meta-analyses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2023

Matteo Cella*
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; and South London and the Maudsley NHS Trust, UK
Safina Roberts
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; and South London and the Maudsley NHS Trust, UK
Matthias Pillny
Affiliation:
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute for Psychology, Universität Hamburg, Germany
Marcel Riehle
Affiliation:
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute for Psychology, Universität Hamburg, Germany
Brian O'Donoghue
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University College Dublin, Ireland; and Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Australia
John Lyne
Affiliation:
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Ireland; and Health Service Executive, Newcastle Hospital, Ireland
Paul Tomlin
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK
Lucia Valmaggia
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; South London and the Maudsley NHS Trust, UK; and Katholieke Leuven Universitet, Belgium
Antonio Preti
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Italy
*
Correspondence: Matteo Cella. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Currently there is no first-line treatment recommended for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Psychosocial and behavioural interventions are widely used to reduce the burden of negative symptoms. Meta-analytic studies have summarised the evidence for specific approaches but not compared evidence quality and benefit.

Aim

To review and evaluate the evidence from meta-analytic studies of psychosocial and behavioural interventions for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Method

A systematic literature search was undertaken to identify all meta-analyses evaluating psychosocial and behavioural interventions reporting on negative symptom outcomes in people with schizophrenia. Data on intervention, study characteristics, acceptability and outcome were extracted. Risk of bias was evaluated. Results were summarised descriptively, and evidence ranked on methodological quality.

Results

In total, 31 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria evaluating the efficacy of negative symptom interventions on 33 141 participants. Exercise interventions showed effect sizes (reduction in negative symptoms) ranging from −0.59 to −0.24 and psychological interventions ranging from −0.65 to −0.04. Attrition ranged between 12% to 32%. Across the studies considered heterogeneity varied substantially (range 0–100). Most of the reviews were of very low to low methodological quality. Methodological quality ranking suggested that the effect size for cognitive remediation and exercise therapy may be more robust compared with other approaches.

Conclusions

Most of the interventions considered had a small-to-moderate effect size, good acceptability levels but very few had negative symptoms as the primary intervention target. To improve the confidence of these effect sizes being replicated in clinical settings future studies should minimise risk of bias.

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Background

Negative symptoms are a cluster of psychosis symptoms characterised by a reduction or loss of normal functions. These include reductions in goal-directed and social behaviour, poor motivation, anhedonia, blunted affect and flattened speech.Reference Galderisi, Mucci, Buchanan and Arango1,Reference Marder and Galderisi2 Negative symptoms negatively contribute to long-term outcomes in people with schizophrenia. They are highly prevalent in those with chronic illness,Reference Bobes, Arango, Garcia-Garcia and Rejas3 are associated with poor functional outcomes,Reference Rabinowitz, Levine, Garibaldi, Bugarski-Kirola, Berardo and Kapur4 reduced day-to-day activity and often lead to lower quality of life and reduced psychosocial functioning.Reference Strauss, Sandt, Catalano and Allen5,Reference Pillny, Schlier and Lincoln6

Intervention development to date has strongly focused on positive symptoms and produced effective treatments.Reference Leucht, Corves, Arbter, Engel, Li and Davis7,Reference Sivec and Montesano8 However, it is apparent that positive symptoms remission often does not correspond with a reduction of negative symptoms and/or improved recovery.Reference Cassidy, Norman, Manchanda, Schmitz and Malla9,Reference AlAqeel and Margolese10

In recent years it has been recognised that better treatments targeting negative symptoms are needed to improve long-term illness outcomes and recovery rates.Reference Aleman, Lincoln, Bruggeman, Melle, Arends and Arango11 To date attempts to develop and evaluate pharmacotherapy for negative symptoms have proven complex and showed, at best, modest benefits.Reference Möller and Czobor12,Reference Leucht, Cipriani, Spineli, Mavridis, Orey and Richter13 Attempts at pharmacological augmentation of antipsychotic treatment have also shown little benefit compared with placebo, for example Deakin et al.Reference Deakin, Suckling, Barnes, Byrne, Chaudhry and Dazzan14

Psychosocial and behavioural interventions

Psychosocial and behavioural interventions for negative symptoms were developed and used alongside pharmacotherapies. In many cases, these interventions were not originally designed to target negative symptoms but adapted from other therapy targets (e.g. positive symptoms or depression). The landscape, however, is changing, with an increasing number of studies having negative symptoms as their primary intervention target. To date non-pharmacological approaches to treat negative symptoms have used methods consistent with different hypothesised treatment mechanisms and therapy techniques. Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) approaches aim to challenge defeatist beliefs and generalised expectations of failure that might be associated with a lack of motivation and difficulties with pleasure experience.Reference Klingberg, Wölwer, Engel, Wittorf, Herrlich and Meisner15,Reference Velthorst, Koeter, van der Gaag, Nieman, Fett and Smit16 One of the initial studies in this area showed that the adapted model of CBT for negative symptoms was able to improve clients’ motivation and reduce apathy leading to improvements in functioning.Reference Grant, Huh, Perivoliotis, Stolar and Beck17

Another approach increasingly used to target negative symptoms is cognitive remediation. Cognitive remediation may reduce negative symptoms by targeting the cognitive underpinning of negative symptoms including reward processing abnormalities, working memory, problem-solving and planning.Reference Cella, Bishara, Medin, Swan, Reeder and Wykes18Reference Cella, Stahl, Morris, Keefe, Bell and Wykes20

More recent therapy developments for negative symptoms have seen the application of third-wave psychological treatments, exercise therapy and social skills training. Mindfulness-based interventions for negative symptoms include a behavioural component that is thought to encourage reactivity as well as increase anticipatory pleasure.Reference Chien, Cheng, McMaster, Yip and Wong21 Exercise-based interventions aim to improve motivation by using behavioural activation principles, which have shown promise in reducing negative symptoms.Reference Dean, Bryan, Newberry, Gupta, Carol and Mittal22 Finally, social skills training aims to support clients to develop expressive and receptive communication skills, enabling social contact and improving functioning in the community. These have been shown to reduce anhedonia, improve motivation and social engagement.Reference Granholm and Harvey23

Aims

The increase in the number of studies reporting on negative symptom treatment outcomes has allowed, more recently, for the results to be aggregated in systematic reviews and evaluated with meta-analyses. However, the studies considered tend to have a high degree of heterogeneity for intervention and type of outcome, with negative symptoms only rarely evaluated as the primary outcome.Reference Veerman, Schulte and de Haan24 Further, these reviews can vary in the information provided on intervention acceptability indicators (e.g. attrition rates). This is particularly important when considering treatment recommendations but also for efficacy trials, given that treatment retention in research studies can be problematic for people with schizophrenia.Reference Lecomte, Spidel, Leclerc, MacEwan, Greaves and Bentall25

With these limitations in mind, it may be difficult to use the information in the literature to inform clinical guidelines for the treatment of negative symptoms. The aim of this review is to synthesise and appraise the evidence collated by existing meta-analyses on the efficacy of psychosocial and behavioural interventions for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia to guide clinical decision-making, guideline recommendations and future study approaches.

Method

This review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Reference Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff and Altman26 The protocol was registered on 14 August 2020 on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=186496ID=CRD42020186496). The PICO framework was used to describe the elements of the review.Reference Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li and Page27

Participants

Participants were adults (18 years and over), with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. No restrictions were placed on the illness duration or severity.

Interventions

Psychosocial and behavioural interventions were defined as any intervention that promoted physical and mental well-being. Interventions could be delivered either individually or in a group setting and could be offered in addition to treatment-as-usual, including pharmacotherapy. Only interventions offering more than one session were considered. Interventions using devices to alter brain functioning such as brain stimulation (e.g. repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation) were not included.

Control group

Any control groups including usual care, no intervention or other interventions including pharmacological interventions were included.

Study design and outcomes

Studies were meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, considering randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the primary or secondary outcome was a validated measure of negative symptoms for people with schizophrenia. We only included meta-analyses where appropriate methods for statistical computation of results were used and reported (e.g. using standardised mean difference for measures of effect). To determine the acceptability of the interventions, we collected information on people who dropped out of the study. We also evaluated attrition bias and how data from participants who dropped out or failed to complete assessment measures was handled.

Search strategy

A systematic search of the literature was performed in the following electronic databases: PsycINFO, EMBASE and Medline, using the OVID interface to find relevant studies, in addition to The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews. The search was restricted to systematic reviews including a meta-analysis; published in peer-reviewed journals; considering only RCTs. Publications from January 1980 to June 2022, limited to English language, were included in the search.

The search strategy was developed and adapted to fit the requirements for each of the databases. MESH and index terms of the following keywords were combined: (a) ‘psychosis’ ‘schizophrenia’, (b) ‘negative’, (c) ‘psychosocial’, and (d) ‘systematic review’. Relevant variations, synonyms and truncations were also included (see Supplementary Appendix 1 available at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2023.21 for completed search strategy). EndNote was used to manage records throughout the review process.

Study inclusion/exclusion criteria

Systematic reviews were included if they met the following inclusion criteria:

  1. (a) samples were at least 75% participants with schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis;

  2. (b) reported on a psychosocial and behavioural intervention;

  3. (c) considered only RCTs;

  4. (d) reported the effect of the intervention on a validated negative symptoms outcome;

  5. (e) reported the comparison effect sizes between treatment and control condition;

  6. (f) the effect size reported was calculated using meta-analytic procedures on at least two independent studies.

Quality rating

All the included reviews were independently rated for methodological quality by two reviewers using the AMSTAR tool. This is a validated tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.Reference Shea, Bouter, Peterson, Boers, Andersson and Ortiz28 The tool includes 16 items; individual items are combined to give an overall rating related to study quality at one of four levels: (a) critically low quality, (b) low quality, (c) moderate quality, (d) high quality.

Data extraction

After duplicate citations were removed, a two-part screening and extraction process was conducted. First, titles and abstracts were independently screened by S.R., MR, M.P. and P.T. Where there were discrepancies, these were discussed and resolved by M.C.

Data extraction was performed by two authors pairs: S.R. and P.T. (pair 1) and M.R. and M.P. (pair 2). At least two authors extracted data independently from papers and performed data checks. Any disagreement was resolved in discussion with a third author (M.C.). Information was extracted using a data extraction template based on the PICO (patient or population; intervention; comparison intervention or condition; outcome) framework.Reference Richardson, Wilson, Nishikawa and Hayward29

The information extracted included: inclusion criteria, number of studies, sample diagnoses, total number of participants considered, age range and/or mean, type of intervention, length of interventions (on average), control group, people who dropped out of the study, measure of negative symptoms used, other outcome measures included in the review, statistical analyses performed, mean effect size and heterogeneity. All information was extracted from the review papers considered. To aid comparability, effect sizes are represented in a way that a negative number shows advantage of the active over the control condition (i.e. reduction of negative symptoms).

Evidence ranking

Study risk of bias parameters were used to rank the available evidence based on their methodological quality (first criterion), number of participants considered (second criterion) and variability of intervention effect or statistical heterogeneity (third criterion). The results were presented graphically.

Results

Search outcome

The paper selection process is shown in in Fig. 1 (i.e. PRISMA flow chart). The initial search yielded 692 citations from which 31 meta-analyses reports met inclusion criteria and were included.

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram for identification, screening and eligibility of studies. RCT, randomised controlled trial.

Descriptive analysis of systematic reviews

Studies general characteristics

Supplementary Table 1 provides a summary of the 31 reviews included. These studies includes 33141 participants. Of these, 23 evaluated psychological therapies, 5 exercise therapy, 2 music therapy and 1 multiple approaches. The number of studies included in each review ranged between 2 and 95 with an average of 15.1 studies (median, 10). The objectives of the reviews varied with eight focusing specifically on negative symptomsReference Velthorst, Koeter, van der Gaag, Nieman, Fett and Smit16,Reference Cramer, Lauche, Klose, Langhorst and Dobos30Reference Cella, Preti, Edwards, Dow and Wykes36 and the rest investigating negative symptoms alongside other mental and physical health outcomes. Twenty-two reviews evaluated a single intervention approach while nine compared multiple therapeutic approaches.Reference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31,Reference Burlingame GMS, Hoppe, Hunt and Rosendahl37Reference Jones, Hacker, Meaden, Cormac, Irving and Xia45

Population

Participants number, used for the estimation of negative symptom treatment effect, ranged from 67 to 2878 and the average participants number was 872.1. Age ranged from 18 to 78 years. Most of the studies did not distinguish participants based on their illness stage (e.g. early or chronic phase). One study included only individuals with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.Reference Polese, Fornaro, Palermo, De Luca and de Bartolomeis42

Interventions

Intervention approaches are described in Supplementary Table 1. Six reviews considered forms of exercise therapy including yoga, meditation and tai-chi,Reference Cramer, Lauche, Klose, Langhorst and Dobos30,Reference Sabe, Sentissi and Kaiser32 anaerobic and aerobic exercise,Reference Sabe, Kaiser and Sentissi33 mind–body exercise and resistance training.Reference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31,Reference Vogel, van der Gaag, Slofstra, Knegtering, Bruins and Castelein34 Studies generally defined exercise as any activity aimed at improving or maintaining physical fitness.Reference Firth, Cotter, Elliott, French and Yung46

Two studies evaluated the effect of music therapy,Reference Geretsegger, Mössler, Bieleninik, Chen, Heldal and Gold47,Reference Jia, Liang, Yu, Lu, Wang and Wu48 considered as an intervention aiming to promote health in the context of music experience.Reference Geretsegger, Mössler, Bieleninik, Chen, Heldal and Gold47 The studies considered included active (e.g. music making) and receptive music (e.g. music listening techniques) therapy methods.

Psychological therapies included CBT interventions,Reference Velthorst, Koeter, van der Gaag, Nieman, Fett and Smit16,Reference Jauhar, McKenna, Radua, Fung, Salvador and Laws49 social skills training,Reference Kurtz and Mueser50,Reference Turner, McGlanaghy, Cuijpers, Van Der Gaag, Karyotaki and MacBeth51 acceptance and mindfulness-based approachesReference Cramer, Lauche, Haller, Langhorst and Dobos38,Reference Jansen, Gleeson, Bendall, Rice and Alvarez-Jimenez39 and family interventions.Reference Rodolico, Bighelli, Avanzato, Concerto, Cutrufelli and Mineo52

Three examined specifically cognitive remediation,Reference Cella, Preti, Edwards, Dow and Wykes36,Reference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43,Reference Lejeune, Northrop and Kurtz53 two studies reported on group therapies,Reference Burlingame GMS, Hoppe, Hunt and Rosendahl37,Reference Orfanos, Banks and Priebe41 two reported on family-based therapy,Reference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31,Reference Ma, Chan, Chien, Bressington, Mui and Lee54 and one study focused on integrated neurocognitive therapy.Reference De Mare, Cantarella and Galeoto55

Three studies compared multiple psychological approachesReference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31,Reference Riehle, Böhl, Pillny and Lincoln35,Reference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43 with Turner et alReference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43 reporting on multiple therapies including befriending, CBT, cognitive remediation, psychoeducation, social skills training and supportive counselling.

Control group characteristics

Most exercise therapy studies included treatment-as-usual (TAU) or waitlist as a control condition (see Supplementary Table 1); three studies also considered active control conditions, for example Cramer et al,Reference Cramer, Lauche, Klose, Langhorst and Dobos30 Vogel et alReference Vogel, van der Gaag, Slofstra, Knegtering, Bruins and Castelein34 and Riehle et al.Reference Riehle, Böhl, Pillny and Lincoln35 For studies evaluating CBT and mindfulness-based interventions, control conditions ranged from active controls, non-active controls, waitlist, TAU or standard care. Two studies conducted different meta-analytic comparisons of psychological approaches, with each intervention being compared with the other interventions pooled.Reference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43,Reference Jones, Hacker, Meaden, Cormac, Irving and Xia45 The reviews evaluating group therapies considered active control groups (psychotherapeutic treatments), passive control groups (waitlist controls, attention control) and TAU.Reference Burlingame GMS, Hoppe, Hunt and Rosendahl37,Reference Orfanos, Banks and Priebe41 For social skills training the majority of the control conditions were active controls and TAU.Reference Kurtz and Mueser50,Reference Turner, McGlanaghy, Cuijpers, Van Der Gaag, Karyotaki and MacBeth51 For cognitive remediation the control groups were TAU alone and TAU with the addition of an active control.Reference Cella, Preti, Edwards, Dow and Wykes36 All the studies evaluating family intervention had TAU as their control group.

Outcome measures

The most frequent negative symptoms outcome measure was the Positive and Negative Syndromes Scale (PANSS, 96.7%),Reference Kay, Fiszbein and Opler56 followed by the Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS; 43.4%)Reference Andreasen57 and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS, 36.6%).Reference Velligan, Prihoda, Dennehy, Biggs, Shores-Wilson and Crismon58 Other measures used included the Brief Symptom Inventory,Reference Derogatis and Spencer59 Negative Symptoms Assessment,Reference Alphs, Morlock, Coon, van Willigenburg and Panagides60 Brief Negative Symptom ScaleReference Kirkpatrick, Strauss, Nguyen, Fischer, Daniel and Cienfuegos61 and Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale.Reference Asberg and Schalling62

Effect of interventions on negative symptoms

Exercise interventions

Results of five of the meta-analyses suggested that exercise interventions had a significant and positive effect in reducing negative symptoms, with a small-to-medium effect size. One review did not report a significant effect of exercise on negative symptomsReference Cramer, Lauche, Klose, Langhorst and Dobos30 (see Table 1).

Table 1 Meta-analyses results on the effect of exercise interventions on negative symptoms

g, Hedges g; AC, any comparator; RE, random effects; SMD, standardised mean difference; TAU, treatment-as-usual.

Two reviews evaluated the effect of the intervention compared with TAU and active controls separately. Cramer et alReference Cramer, Lauche, Klose, Langhorst and Dobos30 did not find a significant effect for yoga when compared with either TAU or active controls.Reference Cramer, Lauche, Klose, Langhorst and Dobos30 Lutgens et alReference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31 reported that the beneficial effect of exercise on negative symptoms was observed when the comparison group was TAU but there was no significant difference between exercise and active controls. Vogel et alReference Vogel, van der Gaag, Slofstra, Knegtering, Bruins and Castelein34 also reported that exercise interventions were only effective when compared with TAU.

Three of the reviews considered mind–body exercises. One review evaluated yoga.Reference Cramer, Lauche, Klose, Langhorst and Dobos30 Two reviews included several mind–body exercise approaches including tai-chi, yoga and mindfulness.Reference Sabe, Sentissi and Kaiser32,Reference Vogel, van der Gaag, Slofstra, Knegtering, Bruins and Castelein34 Subgroup analyses revealed a small but significant effect favouring yoga, with high heterogeneity, which disappeared when studies at high risk of bias were excluded.Reference Sabe, Sentissi and Kaiser32

Sabe et alReference Sabe, Kaiser and Sentissi33 found that the effect of physical exercise on negative symptoms was driven by aerobic exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) = −0.31, 95% CI −0.54 to −0.09; P < 0.01) but a different review showed this result may be affected by high risk of bias.Reference Vogel, van der Gaag, Slofstra, Knegtering, Bruins and Castelein34

Cramer et alReference Cramer, Lauche, Klose, Langhorst and Dobos30 showed no short-term benefits (i.e. 12 weeks after randomisation) on negative symptoms when comparing yoga to exercise or TAU.Reference Cramer, Lauche, Klose, Langhorst and Dobos30 Sabe et alReference Sabe, Sentissi and Kaiser32,Reference Sabe, Kaiser and Sentissi33 reported intervention lengths between 14.5 and 20.8 weeks, however, Vogel et alReference Vogel, van der Gaag, Slofstra, Knegtering, Bruins and Castelein34 showed that intervention length does not influence efficacy.

Music therapy

The two studies that examined music therapy showed moderate effect sizes in reducing negative symptoms compared with TAU (see Table 2). In a study by Geretsegger et al,Reference Geretsegger, Mössler, Bieleninik, Chen, Heldal and Gold47 music therapy combined with standard care showed a significant effect after intervention on negative symptoms when compared with TAU (SMD = −0.55, 95% CI −0.87 to −0.24, P < 0.001). Jia et alReference Jia, Liang, Yu, Lu, Wang and Wu48 found that music therapy was able to reduce negative symptoms compared with TAU (SMD = −0.61, 95% CI −0.80 to −0.42, P < 0.05) and that interventions lasting >3 months were more effective in negative symptom reduction compared with those lasting < 3 months. Lutgens et alReference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31 also evaluated arts-based treatments (including music therapy), which had no effect on negative symptoms, but in a sensitivity analysis they found a moderate effect of music therapy on reducing negative symptoms compared with TAU.

Table 2 Meta-analyses results on the effect of psychological interventions on negative symptoms

AC, any comparator; d = Cohen's d; FE, fixed effects; g = Hedges’ g; MD, mean difference; OPT, other psychological therapies; RE, random effects; SMD, standardised mean difference; TAU, treatment-as-usual.

a. SMD calculated see Supplementary Appendix 4 for details.

b. Review presented negative value as favouring control condition.

c. Review presented positive value as favouring experimental condition.

CBT

The effect of CBT was examined in ten studies (see Table 2). Overall, these studies showed small-to-moderate effects of CBT in reducing negative symptoms when compared with TAU and no differences between CBT and other psychological treatments.

Lutgens et alReference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31 and Wykes et alReference Wykes, Steel, Everitt and Tarrier63 showed CBT to be more effective compared with TAU with small effect sizes. The results by Velthorst et alReference Velthorst, Koeter, van der Gaag, Nieman, Fett and Smit16 and Wykes et alReference Wykes, Steel, Everitt and Tarrier63 suggest that these effects are smaller and non-significant in studies with lower risk of bias. Jones et alReference Jones, Hacker, Meaden, Cormac, Irving and Xia45 found significant negative symptom reductions for CBT compared with TAU in studies using the PANSS as the outcome measure based on short- (up to 24 weeks), medium- (24–52 weeks) and long-term (over 52 weeks) follow-up periods, and no effect for studies using the SANS (only short-term follow-up available). Sarin et alReference Sarin, Wallin and Widerlov64 found a small, approaching significance, effect at follow-up (3–15 months after treatment) but no immediate post-treatment effect.

In RCTs focusing on treatment-resistant schizophrenia, Polese et alReference Polese, Fornaro, Palermo, De Luca and de Bartolomeis42 did not find an effect of CBT compared with TAU. In RCTs including only patients with elevated negative symptoms before therapy, Riehle et alReference Riehle, Böhl, Pillny and Lincoln35 found a small, approaching significance, effect of negative symptom reduction for CBT compared with TAU. Secondary outcome analyses showed a small-to-moderate significant effect on motivational negative symptoms and no effect on expressive negative symptoms.

In meta-analyses comparing CBT with active controls or other psychological therapies, no study found a significant difference for the reduction of negative symptoms immediately post-treatment.Reference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31,Reference Riehle, Böhl, Pillny and Lincoln35,Reference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43,Reference Jones, Hacker, Meaden, Cormac, Irving and Xia45,Reference Jauhar, McKenna, Radua, Fung, Salvador and Laws49 Sarin et alReference Sarin, Wallin and Widerlov64 found a small effect favouring CBT over other psychological treatments at follow-up.

Social skills training

All the four reviews evaluating social skills trainingReference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31,Reference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43,Reference Kurtz and Mueser50,Reference Turner, McGlanaghy, Cuijpers, Van Der Gaag, Karyotaki and MacBeth51 found it to be effective in reducing negative symptoms. Turner et alReference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43 also conducted analyses excluding studies with high risk of bias and showed this finding to be robust (g = −0.32, P < 0.05).

Acceptance and mindfulness-based

Five reviews reported on acceptance and mindfulness-based therapies. Four of these found significant small-to-moderate effects for reducing negative symptoms when comparing mindfulness-based therapies with TAU withReference Jansen, Gleeson, Bendall, Rice and Alvarez-Jimenez39,Reference Hodann-Caudevilla, Díaz-Silveira, Burgos-Julián and Santed65 and without an active control condition.Reference Tonarelli, Pasillas, Alvarado, Dwivedi and Cancellare66,Reference Liu, Li and Hsiao67 No difference with TAU was found in a smaller meta-analysis by Cramer et al.Reference Cramer, Lauche, Klose, Langhorst and Dobos30

Group therapies

Group therapy was investigated in three reviews.Reference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31,Reference Burlingame GMS, Hoppe, Hunt and Rosendahl37,Reference Orfanos, Banks and Priebe41 The results showed a small and significant overall effect of group therapies compared with controls post-treatment. Burlingame et al,Reference Burlingame GMS, Hoppe, Hunt and Rosendahl37 conducted follow-up analyses showing that group social skills training and cognitive remediation had a small-to-medium significant reduction on negative symptoms (g = 0.23, 95% CI 0.03–0.34, P = 0.03; g = 0.56, 95% CI 0.29–0.84, P < 0.001), respectively.

Cognitive remediation

Three reviews investigated the effect of cognitive remediation.Reference Cella, Preti, Edwards, Dow and Wykes36,Reference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43,Reference Lejeune, Northrop and Kurtz53 Cella et alReference Cella, Preti, Edwards, Dow and Wykes36 and Lejeune et alReference Lejeune, Northrop and Kurtz53 showed significant small-to-moderate effects for cognitive remediation compared with controls at post-treatment (see Supplementary Table 1). Sensitivity analysis in Cella et alReference Cella, Preti, Edwards, Dow and Wykes36 found that studies with higher methodological quality had a larger effect size compared with those with lower quality. Turner et al,Reference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43 found no significant difference between cognitive remediation and all other therapies on negative symptoms, and this remained non-significant after sensitivity analyses. Additionally, Riehle et al34 found no difference between cognitive remediation and CBT in reducing negative symptoms in RCTs in which patients had elevated negative symptoms before therapy.

Family-based therapy

The review by Ma et alReference Ma, Chan, Chien, Bressington, Mui and Lee54 found a significant effect of family-based therapies on negative symptoms whereas Lutgens et alReference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31 found no effect regardless of the control comparison (see Supplementary Table 1). Long-term effects were not reported in either of the reviews. Rodolico et alReference Rodolico, Bighelli, Avanzato, Concerto, Cutrufelli and Mineo52 found a significant overall effect on negative symptoms of family interventions compared with TAU. Their subgroup analyses with k ≥ 2 indicated superiority of ‘community-based supportive care interventions’, and the combination of family psychoeducation with patient behavioural skills training. Combinations with family behavioural skills training, mutual supportive skill training or emotional climate-focused interventions were not superior to TAU.

Other interventions

The review by De Mare et al,Reference De Mare, Cantarella and Galeoto55 reported short-term effects of integrated neurocognitive therapy at 15 weeks post-treatment and showed a significant reduction of negative symptoms (see Supplementary Table 1) with this result maintained at 9–12-month follow-up.

Turner et al,Reference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43 found no evidence in support of befriending, psychoeducation or supportive counselling being superior to the other interventions pooled. Lutgens et alReference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31 found a small beneficial effect for miscellaneous interventions on negative symptoms in comparison with TAU but not for active control.

Acceptability

Nine out of the 31 reviews considered reported attrition rates (see Supplementary Appendix 2). For studies on exercise Firth et al described an attrition rate of 32%.Reference Firth, Cotter, Elliott, French and Yung46 Vogel et alReference Vogel, van der Gaag, Slofstra, Knegtering, Bruins and Castelein34 reported the average attrition rate for group interventions was 15.2%, which was marginally higher than the average drop-out rate of participants in the TAU group (14.64%). Burlingame et alReference Burlingame GMS, Hoppe, Hunt and Rosendahl37 reported an average attrition rate of 12%, with no difference between the intervention and the control groups for group psychotherapy. Riehle et alReference Riehle, Böhl, Pillny and Lincoln35 reported an average attrition rate of 16% in CBT treatment arms, 20% in cognitive remediation, and 11% in TAU. Jones et alReference Jones, Hacker, Meaden, Cormac, Irving and Xia45 reported a drop-out rate of 14% for CBT plus standard care and for 13% for standard care. Sarin et alReference Sarin, Wallin and Widerlov64 reported that the overall attrition rate was 14% at post-treatment and 17% at follow-up. Cella et alReference Cella, Preti, Edwards, Dow and Wykes36 reported no differences in attrition rates between the intervention and the control group. Hodann-Caudevilla et alReference Hodann-Caudevilla, Díaz-Silveira, Burgos-Julián and Santed65 reported an average 14% attrition rate in mindfulness-based intervention treatment arms. Finally, De Mare et alReference De Mare, Cantarella and Galeoto55 reported attrition rates for integrated therapies to be below 15% at the end of treatment as well as at follow-up.

Attrition bias

Most reviews considered attrition bias risk as part of their quality assessment. In Sabe et alReference Sabe, Sentissi and Kaiser32,Reference Sabe, Kaiser and Sentissi33 studies with high attrition risk were considered and sensitivity analyses performed. Similarly, Turner et alReference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43,Reference Turner, McGlanaghy, Cuijpers, Van Der Gaag, Karyotaki and MacBeth51 analysed studies with a high and low risk of bias separately. Orfanos et alReference Orfanos, Banks and Priebe41 also excluded those studies that were rated high on risk of bias for drop-out. The review by Cramer et alReference Cramer, Lauche, Haller, Langhorst and Dobos38 reported that two out of the three papers considered used an intention-to-treat analysis. Likewise, Riehle et alReference Riehle, Böhl, Pillny and Lincoln35 reported that one of the CBT RCTs did not conduct an intent-to-treat analysis. Jansen et alReference Jansen, Gleeson, Bendall, Rice and Alvarez-Jimenez39 also reported that one of the studies considered had a high risk of attrition bias although it did not affect the results. Jones et alReference Jones, Hacker, Meaden, Cormac, Irving and Xia45 reported five of the studies considered were at high risk of bias.

A few reviews excluded studies that did not meet pre-specified requirements around risk of bias. Jauhar et al excluded studies with attrition above 20%.Reference Jauhar, McKenna, Radua, Fung, Salvador and Laws49 Jones et alReference Jones, Hacker, Cormac, Meaden and Irving40 excluded studies with attrition above 40%. Ma et al excluded studies with one or more of the Cochrane Risk of Bias items rated as high, which eliminated those studies with a high risk of attrition bias.Reference Ma, Chan, Chien, Bressington, Mui and Lee54 Similarly, the review by Geretsegger et alReference Geretsegger, Mössler, Bieleninik, Chen, Heldal and Gold47 only included studies with an overall low risk of bias.

Quality ratings

The AMSTAR ratings ranged from critically low quality to moderate quality (see Supplementary Appendix 3) with most of the reviews rated as critically low (71%). Only one review was of moderate quality.Reference Geretsegger, Mössler, Bieleninik, Chen, Heldal and Gold47

Evidence ranking

Figure 2 shows the ranking of the included studies according to:

  1. (a) methodological quality (study dot colour);

  2. (b) number of participants considered (X axis);

  3. (c) heterogeneity (size of the dot).

Effect sizes are represented on the y-axis. Medium effect size threshold (i.e. 0.3) and sample size (i.e. n = 500) are overlayed to aid the interpretation. For the size of the evidence considered, methodological quality and heterogeneity, the studies by Cella et alReference Cella, Preti, Edwards, Dow and Wykes36 on cognitive remediation and Vogel et alReference Vogel, van der Gaag, Slofstra, Knegtering, Bruins and Castelein34 and Sabe et alReference Sabe, Sentissi and Kaiser32 on exercise-based therapies appear to present the most robust results.

Fig. 2 (a) Shows studies ranking compared with treatment-as-usual according to: (i) methodological quality (study dot colour); (ii) number of participants considered (x-axis); (iii) heterogeneity (size of the dot). Study effect size is represented on the y-axis with standardised mean difference (SMD). (b) Shows studies ranking compared with active treatment according to: (i) methodological quality (study dot colour); (ii) number of participants considered (x-axis); (iii) heterogeneity (size of the dot). Study effect size is represented on the y-axis with SMD.

Note: 1Reference Rodolico, Bighelli, Avanzato, Concerto, Cutrufelli and Mineo52; 2Reference Liu, Li and Hsiao67; 3Reference Lejeune, Northrop and Kurtz53; 4Reference Sabe, Kaiser and Sentissi33; 5Reference Jansen, Gleeson, Bendall, Rice and Alvarez-Jimenez39; 6Reference Burlingame GMS, Hoppe, Hunt and Rosendahl37; 7/8Reference Riehle, Böhl, Pillny and Lincoln35; 9Reference Jia, Liang, Yu, Lu, Wang and Wu48; 10Reference Hodann-Caudevilla, Díaz-Silveira, Burgos-Julián and Santed65; 11Reference Vogel, van der Gaag, Slofstra, Knegtering, Bruins and Castelein34; 12Reference Sabe, Sentissi and Kaiser32; 13Reference Polese, Fornaro, Palermo, De Luca and de Bartolomeis42; 14Reference Jones, Hacker, Meaden, Cormac, Irving and Xia45; 15Reference Turner, McGlanaghy, Cuijpers, Van Der Gaag, Karyotaki and MacBeth51; 16Reference De Mare, Cantarella and Galeoto55; 17Reference Jones, Hacker, Xia, Meaden, Irving and Zhao44; 18/20/21/23Reference Lutgens, Gariepy and Malla31; 19Reference Geretsegger, Mössler, Bieleninik, Chen, Heldal and Gold47; 22Reference Cella, Preti, Edwards, Dow and Wykes36; 24Reference Cramer, Lauche, Haller, Langhorst and Dobos38; 25Reference Tonarelli, Pasillas, Alvarado, Dwivedi and Cancellare66; 26Reference Firth, Cotter, Elliott, French and Yung46; 27Reference Grant, Huh, Perivoliotis, Stolar and Beck17; 28/29Reference Orfanos, Banks and Priebe41; 30Reference Jauhar, McKenna, Radua, Fung, Salvador and Laws49; 31/32Reference Turner, van der Gaag, Karyotaki and Cuijpers43;33Reference Cramer, Lauche, Klose, Langhorst and Dobos30; 34/35Reference Sarin, Wallin and Widerlov64; 36Reference Asberg and Schalling62; 37Reference Kurtz and Mueser50. ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy; CBT, cognitive–behavioural therapy; CR, cognitive remediation; EXE, exercise therapy; FAM, family therapy; GRP, group therapy; INT, integrated therapy; MIND, mindfulness; SSK, social skills training.

Discussion

Main findings

This study is the first, to the authors’ knowledge, to synthesise the evidence collated by existing meta-analyses on the efficacy of psychosocial and behavioural interventions for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. It considered 31 peer-reviewed meta-analyses including > 30 000 participants.

Overall, the studies included indicate that psychosocial and behavioural interventions can reduce negative symptoms. This is despite heterogeneity across reviews in terms of the treatment conditions, duration and intensity but also outcome assessment and study design.

Interpretation of our findings on interventions

Psychological therapies were the largest category, with the most evidence available for cognitive-based approaches, however, only one review considered treatments with negative symptoms as a primary intervention target. This is a reflection of the evidence base for psychological interventions in psychosis, which, until recently, has focused predominantly on positive symptoms.Reference Grant, Huh, Perivoliotis, Stolar and Beck17 For CBT interventions, most reviews reporting a positive outcome found small effect sizes, and outcomes varied depending on the control condition, and the time point at which outcomes were measured. The risk of bias was also high for most of these studies. Currently, CBT is recommended in some clinical guidelines (e.g. the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines) for the treatment of positive symptoms. Although our study shows that this approach may lead to small improvements in negative symptoms, previous research suggested that the effect of CBT beyond positive symptoms may be limited.Reference Laws, Darlington, Kondel, McKenna and Jauhar68 Further research with methodologically rigorous trials with targeted CBT interventions, predefined assessment, clear treatment dosage and long-term follow-up would be needed to expand the evidence base.

Four out of six reviews on exercise intervention reported these interventions can reduce negative symptoms. These reviews also had low methodological quality and large heterogeneity. Interestingly, effect sizes varied according to the type of exercise included, with favourable outcomes for mind–body exercise and aerobic exercise. Exercise-based therapies may reduce negative symptoms by promoting behavioural activation and offering opportunities for enjoyable activities. If these were found to be important therapy elements, it may be possible to incorporate these more widely for the management of negative symptoms. Other elements such as the social aspect of exercise may be also contributing to negative symptoms reduction.Reference Dean, Bryan, Newberry, Gupta, Carol and Mittal22 Importantly, there may be additional benefits of exercise therapy contributing to physical well-being. Research has shown that people with schizophrenia are more likely to have physical health comorbidities, which are often associated with lifestyle behaviours including weight gain, poor diet, and smoking, in addition to the side-effects from medication.Reference Nenke, Hahn, Thompson, Liu and Galletly69Reference Martland, Teasdale, Murray, Gardner-Sood, Smith and Ismail71

Results from acceptance and mindfulness-based approaches were mixed, with reviews reporting small-to-moderate significant effects. This was similar to the observed effects of social skills training and group interventions. Importantly most of the reviews in these categories were rated as of critically low methodological quality and included a very small number of studies and participants, for example Tonarelli et al.Reference Tonarelli, Pasillas, Alvarado, Dwivedi and Cancellare66

The results for cognitive remediation, family-based and integrated therapies are promising and showing that each of these approaches have moderate and significant effects on negative symptoms. Although the evidence base for family-based and integrated therapy it is still in its infancy, the evidence for cognitive remediation appears more developed and robust although only a few studies considered negative symptoms as their primary intervention target. Overall, the effect sizes for the psychological therapies considered are similar. This is consistent with literature suggesting that the effects of psychological treatments are largely driven by common factors (e.g. empathy, alliance, collaboration) and that the comparisons of different forms of psychotherapy often result in non-significant differences, and contextual and relational aspects often mediate or moderate outcomes.Reference Laska, Gurman and Wampold72

Research has shown that engaging people with schizophrenia in psychological therapy can be challenging, with an average of 16% of people discontinuing CBT.Reference Lincoln, Suttner and Nestoriuc73 The clinical presentation of people with negative symptoms including reduced motivation and apathy may make therapy attendance even more difficultReference Galderisi, Mucci, Buchanan and Arango1,Reference Edwards, Cella, Emsley, Tarrier and Wykes74 and therefore interventions with good acceptability is important.

Attrition and negative symptom severity

Only nine of the 31 included reviews commented on attrition. The remaining reviews either did not report on attrition or noted that the included studies had insufficient information on drop-out rates. This is an issue future reviews and clinical trials should consider carefully as attrition could have an impact on intervention implementation.Reference Miller, Hollist and Salkind75 The limited evidence collated in this study suggests that exercise, group therapy, CBT and cognitive remediation have similar attrition rates to those reported in control groups (between 10% to 32%). A further aspect which may compound attrition and received limited attention in the studies considered is negative symptom severity. Evidence of intervention efficacy in individuals with primary and secondary negative symptoms would be of clinical relevance as presentations and settings (e.g. in-patient or out-patient) in which interventions may be delivered are likely to be different.Reference Galderisi, Mucci, Buchanan and Arango1 Interventions may also need to be adapted to address more rooted motivational and pleasure experience difficulties in those with primary negative symptoms who may require therapies to be more engaging and feel more relevant for their goals.

Most of the studies considered in the reviews did not have negative symptoms as their primary outcome. This is important when interpreting results, as many interventions were not specifically designed to treat negative symptoms and analyses may have not been sufficiently powered to assess efficacy for this outcome.

Assessing negative symptoms

More than 95% of the reviews considered used the PANSS as their method of assessment for negative symptoms. Although popular, due to its capacity of assessing multiple symptoms domains, one of the PANSS key limitations is considering negative symptoms as a unitary construct. Increasing evidence suggests that negative symptoms are multidimensional and expressive (e.g. diminished expression) and experiential (e.g. motivational difficulties and anhedonia) symptoms should be considered separately.Reference Blanchard and Cohen76,Reference Strauss, Hong, Gold, Buchanan, McMahon and Keller77 More recent empirical accounts advocate for considering negative symptoms as five distinct dimensions including blunted affect, alogia, anhedonia, avolition and asociality.Reference Strauss, Nuñez, Ahmed, Barchard, Granholm and Kirkpatrick78 These dimensional accounts are reflected in a new generation of assessment tools that are increasingly used in research studies such as the Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative SymptomsReference Kring, Gur, Blanchard, Horan and Reise79 and the Brief Negative Symptom Scale.Reference Kirkpatrick, Saoud, Strauss, Ahmed, Tatsumi and Opler80 There is increasing recommendation for these measures to be used in intervention trials targeting negative symptoms as they could offer an insight into the clinical dimensions targeted by the intervention.Reference Galderisi, Mucci, Dollfus, Nordentoft, Falkai and Kaiser81

The methodological rigour assessed by the AMSTAR tool was largely low to critically low. This tool is specifically designed to assess meta-analyses and as such reflects the quality of the synthesis made, not of the individual studies.

Strengths and limitations

This review was conducted in line with best practice for the systematic evaluation of reviews and followed the PICO framework.Reference Smith, Devane, Begley and Clarke82,Reference Higgins, Altman, Gøtzsche, Jüni, Moher and Oxman83 We also used recommended practices for minimising the risk of biases, for example by including independent raters to screen studies, extract information and rate the methodological quality of reviews.

Limitations include the heterogeneity of samples, protocols and outcome measures considered across all the reviews that reduced the extent of the comparisons possible. For papers rating, for selection and risk of bias, we did not evaluate rater agreement and instead used a third rater to resolve any disagreement. We did not perform an evaluation of treatment effects at follow-up as the follow-up periods (and reporting) between studies had high variability.

Implications

Overall, this review highlights limited robust evidence for psychosocial and behavioural interventions for treatment of negative symptoms. This is a significant gap that has an impact on the long-term quality of life and functioning outcomes for people with schizophrenia but also clinical service provision and resources.Reference Strauss, Sandt, Catalano and Allen5 Efforts should be directed to further develop and evaluate interventions whose primary target are negative symptoms, including interventions targeting distinct components such as motivation or pleasure experience difficulties based on individual case formulations.Reference Lincoln, Riehle, Pillny, Helbig-Lang, Fladung and Hartmann-Riemer84 Intervention development may also take advantage of digital technology tools that may facilitate or complement the delivery of interventions; with a recent example of this being a virtual-reality-supported psychological-targeted intervention for negative symptoms.Reference Cella, Tomlin, Robotham, Green, Griffiths and Stahl85

Optimally intervention trials should be well defined in terms of their model of intervention, mechanics dosage, comparison conditions and provide information on the long-term benefits and cost–benefit. The results of the current study map the state of the evidence and indicate some interventions approach with the potential to be further developed, evaluated and used routinely in clinical practice.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2023.21

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are largely available in the online appendices. Additional data requests can be forwarded to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

Conception and design of the work was by M.C., S.R. Data search, extraction and checks were performed by S.R., P.T., M.R., M.P., B.O. and J.L. Evaluation and summary were drafted by M.C., A.P., L.V. and S.R. All authors made significant contributions to drafting and/or revising the manuscript.

Funding

This manuscript did not receive any financial support.

Declaration of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Galderisi, S, Mucci, A, Buchanan, RW, Arango, C. Negative symptoms of schizophrenia: new developments and unanswered research questions. Lancet Psychiatry 2018; 5: 664–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marder, SR, Galderisi, S. The current conceptualization of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. World Psychiatry 2017; 16: 1424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bobes, J, Arango, C, Garcia-Garcia, M, Rejas, J. Prevalence of negative symptoms in outpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders treated with antipsychotics in routine clinical practice: findings from the CLAMORS study. J Clin Psychiatry 2010; 71: 280–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabinowitz, J, Levine, SZ, Garibaldi, G, Bugarski-Kirola, D, Berardo, CG, Kapur, S. Negative symptoms have greater impact on functioning than positive symptoms in schizophrenia: analysis of CATIE data. Schizophr Res 2012; 137: 147–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, GP, Sandt, AR, Catalano, LT, Allen, DN. Negative symptoms and depression predict lower psychological well-being in individuals with schizophrenia. Compr Psychiatry 2012; 53: 1137–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pillny, M, Schlier, B, Lincoln, TM. I just don't look forward to anything”. how anticipatory pleasure and negative beliefs contribute to goal-directed activity in patients with negative symptoms of psychosis. Schizophr Res 2020; 222: 429–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leucht, S, Corves, C, Arbter, D, Engel, RR, Li, C, Davis, JM. Second-generation versus first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2009; 373: 3141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sivec, HJ, Montesano, VL. Cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis in clinical practice. Psychotherapy (Chic) 2012; 49: 258–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassidy, CM, Norman, R, Manchanda, R, Schmitz, N, Malla, A. Testing definitions of symptom remission in first-episode psychosis for prediction of functional outcome at 2 years. Schizophr Bull 2010; 36: 1001–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AlAqeel, B, Margolese, HC. Remission in schizophrenia: critical and systematic review. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2012; 20: 281–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aleman, A, Lincoln, TM, Bruggeman, R, Melle, I, Arends, J, Arango, C, et al. Treatment of negative symptoms: Where do we stand, and where do we go? Schizophr Res 2017; 186: 5562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Möller, H-J, Czobor, P. Pharmacological treatment of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2015; 265: 567–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leucht, S, Cipriani, A, Spineli, L, Mavridis, D, Orey, D, Richter, F, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet 2013; 382: 951–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deakin, B, Suckling, J, Barnes, TRE, Byrne, K, Chaudhry, IB, Dazzan, P, et al. The benefit of minocycline on negative symptoms of schizophrenia in patients with recent-onset psychosis (BeneMin): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry 2018; 5: 885–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klingberg, S, Wölwer, W, Engel, C, Wittorf, A, Herrlich, J, Meisner, C, et al. Negative symptoms of schizophrenia as primary target of cognitive behavioral therapy: results of the randomized clinical TONES study. Schizophr Bull 2011; 37(Suppl 2): S98S110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velthorst, E, Koeter, M, van der Gaag, M, Nieman, DH, Fett, AK, Smit, F, et al. Adapted cognitive-behavioural therapy required for targeting negative symptoms in schizophrenia: meta-analysis and meta-regression. Psychol Med 2015; 45: 453–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, PM, Huh, GA, Perivoliotis, D, Stolar, NM, Beck, AT. Randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive therapy for low-functioning patients with schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012; 69: 121–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cella, M, Bishara, AJ, Medin, E, Swan, S, Reeder, C, Wykes, T. Identifying cognitive remediation change through computational modelling–effects on reinforcement learning in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2014; 40: 1422–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, GP, Waltz, JA, Gold, JM. A review of reward processing and motivational impairment in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2014; 40(Suppl 2): S107–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cella, M, Stahl, D, Morris, S, Keefe, RSE, Bell, MD, Wykes, T. Effects of cognitive remediation on negative symptoms dimensions: exploring the role of working memory. Psychol Med 2017; 47(15): 2593–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chien, WT, Cheng, HY, McMaster, TW, Yip, ALK, Wong, JCL. Effectiveness of a mindfulness-based psychoeducation group programme for early-stage schizophrenia: an 18-month randomised controlled trial. Schizophr Res 2019; 212: 140–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dean, DJ, Bryan, AD, Newberry, R, Gupta, T, Carol, E, Mittal, VA. A supervised exercise intervention for youth at risk for psychosis: an open-label pilot study. J Clin Psychiatry 2017; 78: e1167–e73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Granholm, E, Harvey, PD. Social skills training for negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2018; 44: 472–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veerman, SRT, Schulte, PFJ, de Haan, L. Treatment for negative symptoms in schizophrenia: a comprehensive review. Drugs 2017; 77: 1423–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lecomte, T, Spidel, A, Leclerc, C, MacEwan, GW, Greaves, C, Bentall, RP. Predictors and profiles of treatment non-adherence and engagement in services problems in early psychosis. Schizophr Res 2008; 102: 295302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JP, Thomas, J, Chandler, J, Cumpston, M, Li, T, Page, MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, BJ, Bouter, LM, Peterson, J, Boers, M, Andersson, N, Ortiz, Z, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2007; 2: e1350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, WS, Wilson, MC, Nishikawa, J, Hayward, RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995; 123: A123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cramer, H, Lauche, R, Klose, P, Langhorst, J, Dobos, G. Yoga for schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 2013; 13: 32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lutgens, D, Gariepy, G, Malla, A. Psychological and psychosocial interventions for negative symptoms in psychosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2017; 210: 324–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabe, M, Sentissi, O, Kaiser, S. Meditation-based mind-body therapies for negative symptoms of schizophrenia: systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis. Schizophr Res 2019; 212: 1525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabe, M, Kaiser, S, Sentissi, O. Physical exercise for negative symptoms of schizophrenia: systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2020; 62: 1320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogel, JS, van der Gaag, M, Slofstra, C, Knegtering, H, Bruins, J, Castelein, S. The effect of mind-body and aerobic exercise on negative symptoms in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res 2019; 279: 295305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riehle, M, Böhl, MC, Pillny, M, Lincoln, TM. Efficacy of psychological treatments for patients with schizophrenia and relevant negative symptoms: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Eur 2020; 2: 123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cella, M, Preti, A, Edwards, C, Dow, T, Wykes, T. Cognitive remediation for negative symptoms of schizophrenia: a network meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2017; 52: 4351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burlingame GMS, H, Hoppe, L, Hunt, I, Rosendahl, J. Group therapy for schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Psychother 2020; 57: 219–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, H, Lauche, R, Haller, H, Langhorst, J, Dobos, G. Mindfulness- and acceptance-based interventions for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob Adv Health Med 2016; 5: 3043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansen, JE, Gleeson, J, Bendall, S, Rice, S, Alvarez-Jimenez, M. Acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions for persons with psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Res 2020; 215: 2537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, C, Hacker, D, Cormac, I, Meaden, A, Irving, CB. Cognitive behaviour therapy versus other psychosocial treatments for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 4: CD008712.Google ScholarPubMed
Orfanos, S, Banks, C, Priebe, S. Are group psychotherapeutic treatments effective for patients with schizophrenia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychother Psychosom 2015; 84: 241–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polese, D, Fornaro, M, Palermo, M, De Luca, V, de Bartolomeis, A. Treatment-resistant to antipsychotics: a resistance to everything? Psychotherapy in treatment-resistant schizophrenia and nonaffective psychosis: a 25-Year systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis. Front Psychiatr 2019; 10: 210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, DT, van der Gaag, M, Karyotaki, E, Cuijpers, P. Psychological interventions for psychosis: a meta-analysis of comparative outcome studies. Am J Psychiatry 2014; 171: 523–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, C, Hacker, D, Xia, J, Meaden, A, Irving, CB, Zhao, S, et al. Cognitive behavioural therapy plus standard care versus standard care for people with schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 12: CD007964.Google ScholarPubMed
Jones, C, Hacker, D, Meaden, A, Cormac, I, Irving, CB, Xia, J, et al. Cognitive behavioural therapy plus standard care versus standard care plus other psychosocial treatments for people with schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 11: Cd008712.Google ScholarPubMed
Firth, J, Cotter, J, Elliott, R, French, P, Yung, AR. A systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise interventions in schizophrenia patients. Psychol Med 2015; 45: 1343–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geretsegger, M, Mössler, KA, Bieleninik, L, Chen, XJ, Heldal, TO, Gold, C. Music therapy for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 5: CD004025.Google ScholarPubMed
Jia, R, Liang, D, Yu, J, Lu, G, Wang, Z, Wu, Z, et al. The effectiveness of adjunct music therapy for patients with schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res 2020; 293: 113464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jauhar, S, McKenna, PJ, Radua, J, Fung, E, Salvador, R, Laws, KR. Cognitive-behavioural therapy for the symptoms of schizophrenia: systematic review and meta-analysis with examination of potential bias. Br J Psychiatry 2014; 204: 20–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurtz, MM, Mueser, KT. A meta-analysis of controlled research on social skills training for schizophrenia. J Consult Clin Psychol 2008; 76: 491504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, DT, McGlanaghy, E, Cuijpers, P, Van Der Gaag, M, Karyotaki, E, MacBeth, A. A meta-analysis of social skills training and related interventions for psychosis. Schizophr Bull 2018; 44: 475–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodolico, A, Bighelli, I, Avanzato, C, Concerto, C, Cutrufelli, P, Mineo, L, et al. Family interventions for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 2022; 9: 211–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lejeune, JA, Northrop, A, Kurtz, MM. A meta-analysis of cognitive remediation for schizophrenia: efficacy and the role of participant and treatment factors. Schizophr Bull 2021; 47: 9971006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, CF, Chan, SKW, Chien, WT, Bressington, D, Mui, EYW, Lee, EHM, et al. Cognitive behavioural family intervention for people diagnosed with severe mental illness and their families: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2020; 27: 128–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Mare, A, Cantarella, M, Galeoto, G. Effectiveness of integrated neurocognitive therapy on cognitive impairment and functional outcome for schizophrenia outpatients. Schizophr Res Treat 2018; 2018: 2360697.Google Scholar
Kay, SR, Fiszbein, A, Opler, LA. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). MHS, 2012.Google Scholar
Andreasen, NC. The scale for the assessment of negative symptoms (SANS): conceptual and theoretical foundations. Br J Psychiatry 1989; 155(S7): 4952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velligan, D, Prihoda, T, Dennehy, E, Biggs, M, Shores-Wilson, K, Crismon, ML, et al. Brief psychiatric rating scale expanded version: how do new items affect factor structure? Psychiatry Res 2005; 135: 217–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derogatis, LR, Spencer, P. Brief Symptom Inventory: BSI. Pearson Upper Saddle River, 1993.Google Scholar
Alphs, L, Morlock, R, Coon, C, van Willigenburg, A, Panagides, J. The 4-item negative symptom assessment (NSA-4) instrument: a simple tool for evaluating negative symptoms in schizophrenia following brief training. Psychiatry (Edgmont) 2010; 7: 2632.Google ScholarPubMed
Kirkpatrick, B, Strauss, GP, Nguyen, L, Fischer, BA, Daniel, DG, Cienfuegos, A, et al. The brief negative symptom scale: psychometric properties. Schizophr Bull 2011; 37: 300–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asberg, M, Schalling, D. Construction of a new psychiatric rating instrument, the comprehensive psychopathological rating scale (CPRS). Prog Neuropsychopharmacol 1979; 3: 405–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wykes, T, Steel, C, Everitt, B, Tarrier, N. Cognitive behavior therapy for schizophrenia: effect sizes, clinical models, and methodological rigor. Schizophr Bull 2008; 34: 523–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarin, F, Wallin, L, Widerlov, B. Cognitive behavior therapy for schizophrenia: a meta-analytical review of randomized controlled trials. Nord J Psychiatry 2011; 65: 162–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodann-Caudevilla, RM, Díaz-Silveira, C, Burgos-Julián, FA, Santed, MA. Mindfulness-based interventions for people with schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17(13): 4690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tonarelli, SB, Pasillas, R, Alvarado, L, Dwivedi, A, Cancellare, A. Acceptance and commitment therapy compared to treatment as usual in psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Afr J Psychiatry 2016; 19: 206–11.Google Scholar
Liu, YC, Li, IL, Hsiao, FH. Effectiveness of mindfulness-based intervention on psychotic symptoms for patients with schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Adv Nurs 2021; 77: 2565–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laws, KR, Darlington, N, Kondel, TK, McKenna, PJ, Jauhar, S. Cognitive behavioural therapy for schizophrenia - outcomes for functioning, distress and quality of life: a meta-analysis. BMC Psychol 2018; 6: 32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nenke, MA, Hahn, LA, Thompson, CH, Liu, D, Galletly, CA. Psychosis and cardiovascular disease: is diet the missing link? Schizophr Res 2015; 161: 465–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lally, J, Spaducci, G, Gardner-Sood, P, Atakan, Z, Greenwood, K, Di Forti, M, et al. Tobacco smoking and nicotine dependence in first episode and established psychosis. Asian J Psychiatr 2019; 43: 125–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martland, R, Teasdale, S, Murray, RM, Gardner-Sood, P, Smith, S, Ismail, K, et al. Dietary intake, physical activity and sedentary behaviour patterns in a sample with established psychosis and associations with mental health symptomatology. Psychol Med 2021; 23: 111.Google Scholar
Laska, KM, Gurman, AS, Wampold, BE. Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: a common factors perspective. Psychotherapy 2014; 51: 467–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lincoln, TM, Suttner, C, Nestoriuc, Y. Wirksamkeit kognitiver Interventionen für Schizophrenie. [Effectiveness of cognitive interventions for schizophrenia.] Psychol Rundschau 2008; 59: 217–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, CJ, Cella, M, Emsley, R, Tarrier, N, Wykes, THM. Exploring the relationship between the anticipation and experience of pleasure in people with schizophrenia: an experience sampling study. Schizophr Res 2018; 202: 72–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, R, Hollist, C. Attrition bias. In Encyclopaedia of Measurement and Statistics (ed Salkind, N): Vol. 1, 5760. Sage Publications, Inc., 2007.Google Scholar
Blanchard, JJ, Cohen, AS. The structure of negative symptoms within schizophrenia: implications for assessment. Schizophr Bull 2006; 32: 238–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, GP, Hong, LE, Gold, JM, Buchanan, RW, McMahon, RP, Keller, WR, et al. Factor structure of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale. Schizophr Res 2012; 142: 96–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, GP, Nuñez, A, Ahmed, AO, Barchard, KA, Granholm, E, Kirkpatrick, B, et al. The latent structure of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry 2018; 75: 1271–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kring, AM, Gur, RE, Blanchard, JJ, Horan, WP, Reise, SP. The Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS): final development and validation. Am J Psychiatry 2013; 170: 165–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkpatrick, B, Saoud, JB, Strauss, GP, Ahmed, AO, Tatsumi, K, Opler, M, et al. The Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS): sensitivity to treatment effects. Schizophr Res 2018; 197: 269–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galderisi, S, Mucci, A, Dollfus, S, Nordentoft, M, Falkai, P, Kaiser, S, et al. EPA guidance on assessment of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Eur Psychiatry 2021; 64: e23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, V, Devane, D, Begley, CM, Clarke, M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11: 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JPT, Altman, DG, Gøtzsche, PC, Jüni, P, Moher, D, Oxman, AD, et al. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lincoln, TM, Riehle, M, Pillny, M, Helbig-Lang, S, Fladung, AK, Hartmann-Riemer, M, et al. Using functional analysis as a framework to guide individualized treatment for negative symptoms. Front Psychol 2017; 8: 2108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cella, M, Tomlin, P, Robotham, D, Green, P, Griffiths, H, Stahl, D, et al. Virtual reality therapy for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia (V-NeST): a pilot randomised feasibility trial. Schizophr Res 2022; 248: 50–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram for identification, screening and eligibility of studies. RCT, randomised controlled trial.

Figure 1

Table 1 Meta-analyses results on the effect of exercise interventions on negative symptoms

Figure 2

Table 2 Meta-analyses results on the effect of psychological interventions on negative symptoms

Figure 3

Fig. 2 (a) Shows studies ranking compared with treatment-as-usual according to: (i) methodological quality (study dot colour); (ii) number of participants considered (x-axis); (iii) heterogeneity (size of the dot). Study effect size is represented on the y-axis with standardised mean difference (SMD). (b) Shows studies ranking compared with active treatment according to: (i) methodological quality (study dot colour); (ii) number of participants considered (x-axis); (iii) heterogeneity (size of the dot). Study effect size is represented on the y-axis with SMD.Note: 152; 267; 353; 433; 539; 637; 7/835; 948; 1065; 1134; 1232; 1342; 1445; 1551; 1655; 1744; 18/20/21/2331; 1947; 2236; 2438; 2566; 2646; 2717; 28/2941; 3049; 31/3243;3330; 34/3564; 3662; 3750. ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy; CBT, cognitive–behavioural therapy; CR, cognitive remediation; EXE, exercise therapy; FAM, family therapy; GRP, group therapy; INT, integrated therapy; MIND, mindfulness; SSK, social skills training.

Supplementary material: File

Cella et al. supplementary material

Cella et al. supplementary material

Download Cella et al. supplementary material(File)
File 101.5 KB
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.