Cited by 70Schizophrenia research and treatmentHallucinations in medical conditionsMental Health and Patient Involvement

A review of hearing voices groups: evidence and mechanisms of change

Ruddle, Anna, Mason, Oliver, Wykes, Til·2011·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

As a heavily stigmatized group, voice hearers often value the chance to meet others with similar experiences. As a result, Hearing Voices Groups (HVGs) are becoming increasingly common in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Where resources are constrained, HVGs are frequently viewed as a desirable alternative to individual therapy and are often preferred by service users themselves. HVGs often vary in their content and structure, with four common approaches: CBT, skills-training, mindfulness and unstructured support groups. This review evaluates the evidence for HVGs and the mechanisms of change for successful interventions. CBT was the only approach with evidence from well-controlled studies. However, several evidence-based treatments share 'key ingredients' which evidence suggests help reduce distress. Successful groups supply a safe context for participants to share experiences, and enable dissemination of strategies for coping with voices as well as considering alternative beliefs about voices. Future research should focus on isolating mechanisms of change and predictors of outcome in order to refine HVG approaches, rather than polarizing them and setting them against one another in efficacy trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.03.010

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 71 · Cited by 70

Authors
Ruddle, A., Mason, O., & Wykes, T.
Affiliations
  • Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Ruddle, Anna
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-07
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
757-766
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2070250491
Cited by
70
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
auditory verbal hallucinations, psychosis, group therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, skills training, mindfulness, mechanisms of change, stigma, coping strategies
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Hallucinations, Humans, Self-Help Groups, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review