Bibliotherapy for adverse childhood experience: A systematic review

Abstract

Objective This systematic review aims to identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of bibliotherapy in supporting individuals to overcome adverse childhood experiences (ACE). Methods A systematic search was performed using Medline, Embase , APA PsycInfo and PubMed. Studies were included if they involved participants of any age who had experienced any form of ACE during childhood and had received bibliotherapy as a form of treatment or support. Risk of bias was assesses using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I as appropriate and results were narratively synthesised (PROSPERO CRD42023404418). Results Out of the 606 studies identified, only five met the inclusion criteria, comprising four RCTs and one non-RCT. The interventions included superhero and affective bibliotherapy, a community-based initiative designed to foster a love for reading among children while creating a safe and engaging environment, explicit bibliotherapy, a support group integrating indigenous stories with cognitive behavioural therapy components, and poetry therapy. These interventions were compared against alternative interventions or waitlist controls. Although the evidence was limited and of moderate to low quality, the findings suggest that bibliotherapy may help reduce ACE-related outcomes such as anxiety, grief, and PTSD , enhances emotional competence, provides a higher sense of support compared to waitlist. The included studies were not directly comparable due to high heterogeneity in study design, intervention methods ad outcomes assessment. Conclusions This systematic review highlights the need for further research into the use of bibliotherapy for managing ACE. Cautious implementation of bibliotherapy as an adjunct treatment to complement traditional therapy may enhance and prolong positive outcomes.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.