The meta-analyses in this review provide some evidence for the effectiveness of psychological therapies in prevention of PTSD and reduction of symptoms in children and adolescents exposed to trauma for up to a month. However, our confidence in these findings is limited by the quality of the included studies and by substantial heterogeneity between studies. Much more evidence is needed to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of different psychological therapies for children exposed to trauma, particularly over the longer term. High-quality studies should be conducted to compare these therapies.

There is evidence for the effectiveness of psychological therapies, particularly CBT, for treating PTSD in children and adolescents for up to a month following treatment. At this stage, there is no clear evidence for the effectiveness of one psychological therapy compared to others. There is also not enough evidence to conclude that children and adolescents with particular types of trauma are more or less likely to respond to psychological therapies than others. The findings of this review are limited by the potential for methodological biases, and the small number and generally small size of identified studies. In addition, there was evidence of substantial heterogeneity in some analyses which could not be explained by subgroup or sensitivity analyses. More evidence is required for the effectiveness of all psychological therapies more than one month after treatment. Much more evidence is needed to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of different psychological therapies or the effectiveness of psychological therapies compared to other treatments. More details are required in future trials in regards to the types of trauma that preceded the diagnosis of PTSD and whether the traumas are single event or ongoing. Future studies should also aim to identify the most valid and reliable measures of PTSD symptoms and ensure that all scores, total and sub-scores, are consistently reported.

There is evidence for the effectiveness of psychological therapies, particularly CBT, for treating PTSD in children and adolescents for up to a month following treatment. At this stage, there is no clear evidence for the effectiveness of one psychological therapy compared to others. There is also not enough evidence to conclude that children and adolescents with particular types of trauma are more or less likely to respond to psychological therapies than others.The findings of this review are limited by the potential for methodological biases, and the small number and generally small size of identified studies. In addition, there was evidence of substantial heterogeneity in some analyses which could not be explained by subgroup or sensitivity analyses.More evidence is required for the effectiveness of all psychological therapies more than one month after treatment. Much more evidence is needed to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of different psychological therapies or the effectiveness of psychological therapies compared to other treatments. More details are required in future trials in regards to the types of trauma that preceded the diagnosis of PTSD and whether the traumas are single event or ongoing. Future studies should also aim to identify the most valid and reliable measures of PTSD symptoms and ensure that all scores, total and sub-scores, are consistently reported.

Open Dialogue is an approach to working with people and their families experiencing psychosocial distress. Interest in Open Dialogue in Australia has been growing recently, raising questions about its adaption and implementation to local contexts. This article is an attempt to answer some of the frequently asked questions we have encountered in training and discussions about Open Dialogue. We attempt to provide responses to questions of how Open Dialogue is different to what is done already, how it fits with current approaches, how you know if you are doing it, whether it is passive or just about doing reflections, issues about including the social network, and concerns about the evidence base. This article aims to present a variety of viewpoints in relation to these questions and to hopefully further discussions on how Open Dialogue can be implemented and adapted to Australian health care and social care contexts.

No abstract