Skip to main content
. 2025 Mar 28;16:1484839. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1484839

Table 2.

Data extracted from the included studies with information about country, setting, funding, participants, and assessment.

First author and year 1. Country; 2. Setting; 3. Funding Participants (a. N; b. Target population; c. Age; d. Gender; e. Other demographics) Intervention (1. Number of session/length of sessions/length of intervention; 2. Literature used) Quantitative assessment (1. Assessment tools; 2. Assessment points; 3. Other information) Qualitative assessment (1. Data collection; 2. Method for data analysis)
Andersen (2022)

  1. Norway

  2. At a cancer organization and online

  3. Horizon Europe, Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant

  1. 12 (8 on site, 4 online)

  2. People diagnosed with cancer

  3. Mean 51 years (range 23–69)

  4. Women

  1. 16 sessions/90 min/16 weeks

  2. Short stories (only a few pages) and poems

 None

  1. Participant observation, focus groups, and interviews with the reading leader

  2. Open coding, inductive approach. Self-determination theory and the theory Temporarily Expanding the Boundaries of the Self were used as theoretical frameworks.
Billington et al. (2013)

  1. United Kingdom

  2. 3 care homes, 2 hospital wards, and 1 day center.

  3. The Headley Trust

  1. 61 service users and 20 staff members

  2. People with dementia

  3. Elderly people

  1. One-hour sessions for 3–6 months.

  2. Poetry, very short stories, and short extracts from novels. Reading in a much louder voice than usually. Summary of story before discussions.

  1. NPI-Q (staff reported)

  2. At baseline and for the care homes every 4 weeks.

  3. Longitudinal, quasi-experimental

  1. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with ten staff members who attended SR and/or had extensive knowledge of service users.

  2. Thematic analysis
Billington et al. (2016a)

  1. United Kingdom

  2. Hospital/pain clinic

  3. The University of Liverpool, Department of Culture, Media, and Sport and The Public Engagement Foundation.

  1. 6

  2. Patients with chronic pain

  3. Not consistently reported

  4. Mixed gender

  1. Weekly 2-h sessions for 12 weeks.

  2. Fiction (short stories and extracts), poetry.

  1. Pain rating (0–10) with notes about contextual events and medication. BDI, McGill pain index, GHQ, WAS, and MOS.

  2. Before, during and after the intervention. Pain rating every 12 h.

  3. N = 1 time series design.

  1. Initial focus group-interview with participant and project worker. Followed by individual interviews.

  2. Thematic analysis
Billington et al. (2016b)

  1. United Kingdom

  2. Maximum security prison

  3. UK National Personality Disorder Team.

  1. 35

  2. Prisoners; many diagnosed with mental health issues

  3. 18 to 62 years

  4. Women

  5. White British; 18% below Adult Literacy Level

  1. Weekly 2-h sessions for 12 months.

  2. Poetry, short stories, and extracts from novels.

 None

  1. Field observations (7 sessions). Interviews and focus groups with participants, prison staff, project workers/reader leaders. Records kept by the reader leader during group sessions.

  2. “Realistic evaluation,” themes were identified from field notes.
Billington et al. (2017)

  1. United Kingdom

  2. Pain clinic

  3. The British Academy Small Grants Scheme

  1. 10

  2. Patients with chronic pain

  3. 18 to 75 years

  4. 7 women, 3 men

  5. White British

  1. 22 SR-sessions (SR-only-group). 5 weeks of CBT and then joined the SR group (CBT + SR-group)

  2. Literary fiction and poetry.

  1. Pain (0–10) and emotion diary (2 words). PANAS.

  2. Twice daily (pain and emotion rating), PANAS after each CBT or SR session

  1. SR and CBT sessions recorded and transcribed. Qualitative interviews with participants.

  2. Sessions analyzed with methods which ‘use language as the main point of access to moments of subtle mental change and personal breakthrough, cognitive revaluation, interactive mind’. Findings cross-referenced with participant interviews.
Christiansen and Dalsgård (2021)

  1. Denmark

  2. Not reported

  3. Not reported

  1. 24 in two groups, usually 5 to 6 participants in a session.

  2. Mentally vulnerable young people

  3. Mid 20 to mid 30.

  4. Mixed gender (mostly women)

  5. Diverse social background

  1. 90 min weekly sessions for 18 months

  2. Prose and poetry

 None

  1. Ethnographic field work, participant observation, individual and group interviews with 24 participants.

  2. Analysis of the emerging atmosphere inspired by Rosenblatt and Gumbrecht.
Dowrick et al. (2012)

  1. United Kingdom

  2. GP surgery and a mental health drop-in center

  3. Mersey Beat/Liverpool Primary Care Trust

  1. 18 at baseline and 8 at follow-up

  2. People diagnosed with depression, with ≥1 regular medicine.

  3. Majority 35 to 64 years

  4. Similar numbers of men and women.

  5. White

  1. 90 min weekly sessions for 1 year

  2. Fiction and poetry

  1. PHQ-9 and a self-reported use of health care services.

  2. Before and after the intervention.

  1. Digital recordings of all sessions and diaries completed by the facilitator. 2 members of the research team observed 1 session per month.

  2. Conversation analysis and thematic analysis
Hodge et al. (2007)

  1. United Kingdom

  2. Libraries, a residential drug rehabilitation unit, and a hostel for homeless men

  3. Health Care Education Resources Group Funding, School of Health Sciences, University of Liverpool.

  1. 6 groups with 2 to 12 participants.

  2. Recovering drug addicts and alcoholics, vulnerably housed men, full-time carers, lone parents, isolated elderly people and facilitators

  3. > 18 years

  1. Weekly up to 2 h. Ongoing groups.

  2. Novel, short stories, poems, and plays

 None

  1. Observations (1 time in 5 groups). Case study (6 times in 1 group). Interviews with stakeholders, participants, and librarians.

  2. Thematic analysis
Longden et al. (2015)

  1. United Kingdom

  2. The Reader’s head quarter

  3. The Arts and Humanities Research Council on Cultural Value

  1. 6 persons in SR + 10 volunteers

  2. Individuals at risk of or suffering from mental health problems, isolation, or unemployment; volunteers from local community without SR experience.

  3. Mean 37.8 years (range 21–70)

  4. 11 women and 5 men

  1. 6 SR sessions for 90 min + 6 built environment sessions in a cross design.

  2. Short stories, novels and poems.

  1. PANAS, DASS-21, DMS, WEMWBS, purpose in life and personal growth subscales from SPWB. Participants also asked to generate two words or phrases that described each session

  2. Assessment at baseline and at 6 weeks

  1. Audio and video session recordings. Interviews with participants and mentors.

  2. Discourse analysis and ‘realistic evaluation,’ by a multidisciplinary team
Longden et al. (2016)

  1. United Kingdom

  2. Four care homes

  3. Evaluation commissioned by NHS North West.

  1. 31

  2. Care home residents with mild/moderate dementia.

  3. Elderly.

  4. 16 women, 15 men

  1. One-hour sessions daily for 3 months (2 groups). Weekly session (2 groups) 6–10 participants in each group.

  2. Mostly poetry

  1. DEMQOL-Proxy and NPI-Q (staff reported)

  2. Assessment at baseline and then every month for 6 months

  3. Randomization to intervention or waiting list

 None
Ohlsson et al. (2018)

  1. Sweden

  2. Not reported

  3. Not reported

  1. 4

  2. Non-cancer chronic pain patients

  3. Not reported

  4. Women

  1. 90-min, weekly sessions for 8 weeks.

  2. The study focuses on one session when a short story was read.

 None

  1. Verbatim transcription of video recordings from one SR session.

  2. Discursive psychology and Judith Langer’s theory of literary meaning making
Pihl et al. (2024)

  1. Denmark

  2. Not reported

  3. Not reported

  1. 30

  2. Newly, or soon to be, retired seniors

  3. 65 to75 years

  4. Men

  5. Mixed socioeconomic and educational backgrounds

  1. Weekly sessions for 8 weeks

  2. Short stories and poems

 None

  1. Participant observations. Group interviews with participants.

  2. Template analysis
Steenberg et al. (2014)

  1. Denmark

  2. Not reported

  3. Not reported

  1. 8

  2. Well-educated people with a psychiatric diagnosis

  3. 30 to 50 years

  4. 2 men and 6 women

  1. 6 SR sessions for 2 months.

  2. Short stories and poems.

  1. Heart rate monitoring Likert-scale assessing motivation, interest, experience, and relatedness to the text.

  2. During 4 sessions (heart rate). Immediately after 4 sessions (Likert-scale)

  1. Participant observation at all 6 sessions. 4 sessions audio recorded. Individual interviews with 5 participants and the facilitator 1–2 days after each meeting.

  2. Reader-response analysis of the recorded sessions
Tangerås (2022)

  1. United Kingdom

  2. Care home

  3. Kristiania University College (Norway)

  1. 5 to 12 each session (average 7–8)

  2. Care home residents with mild to moderate dementia

  3. Not reported

  4. Mixed gender

  1. Weekly sessions for 12 weeks.

  2. Poetry.

 None

  1. Field observations and field notes.

  2. Theoretical framework borrowed from intersubjective psychotherapy
Watkins et al. (2022)

  1. United Kingdom

  2. High secure hospital

  3. Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust

  1. 10 at study start, analysis based on 4 regular participants.

  2. Patients with experience of psychosis and a history of self-harm.

  3. Mean 45.25 years, SD = 6.45

  4. Men

  5. All were White British.

  1. Weekly 2-h sessions for 12 months.

  2. Short stories and poems

 None

  1. 39 videos and audio-recorded sessions. Salient sessions were selected for analyze.

  2. Psychological discourse analysis

NPI-Q, NeuroPsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire; SR, Shared reading; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; GHQ, General Health Questionnaire; WAS, Work Adjustment Scale; MOS, Medical Outcomes Study; CBT, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; PANAS, Positive and Negative Affect Scale; PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire-9; DASS-21, Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale; DMS, Dalgard Mastery Scale; WEMWBS, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale; SPWB, Scale of Psychological Well-being; DEMQOL, Dementia Quality of Life SD Standard Deviation.