A review of hearing voices groups: evidence and mechanisms of change
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Group interventions are a more efficient use of therapist time than individual work and may confer additional benefits of social support, normalising, and access to other perspectives.
“Group interventions are notionally a more efficient use of therapist time than individual work, and may confer additional benefits of social support from peers, normalising, and access to other perspectives (Walser and Pistorello, 2004; Ruddle et al., 2011).”
From The feasibility and acceptability of a brief Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) group intervention for people with psychosis: The ‘ACT for Life’ study (2016) · cites this paper as Ruddle et al., 2011
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