Relative efficacy of psychological interventions following interpersonal trauma on anxiety, depression, substance use, and PTSD symptoms in young people: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Interpersonal trauma exposures are associated with anxiety, depression, and substance use in youth populations (aged 12-25 years). This meta-analysis reports on the efficacy of psychological interventions on these symptom domains in addition to post-traumatic stress. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a search of electronic databases was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing interventions for young people following interpersonal trauma exposure. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data were analysed using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Of the 4832 records screened, 78 studies were reviewed, and 10 RCTs, involving 679 participants (mean age 15.6 years), were analysed. There was a large pooled effect size for post-traumatic stress (7 studies, g = 1.43, 95% CI [0.37, 2.15], p = .002) and substance use (2 studies, g = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.22], p < .001) and small effect sizes for anxiety (4 studies, g = 0.30, 95% CI [0.10, 0.49], p = .003), and trend-level effect for depression (10 studies, g = 0.27, 95% CI [0.00, 0.54], p = .052). Heterogeneity was significant for post-traumatic stress and moderate for depression. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality RCTs of psychological interventions for anxiety, depression, substance use, and post-traumatic stress symptoms in young people exposed to interpersonal trauma are scarce. While available studies show either statistically significant or trend-level efficacy for psychological interventions in reducing these symptoms, wide confidence intervals, heterogeneity and small sample size mean that results need to be interpreted with caution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.064 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".