Summary of findings 6. Social problem‐solving therapy + psychoeducation versus treatment‐as‐usual for antisocial personality disorder.

Social problem‐solving therapy + psychoeducation versus treatment‐as‐usual for antisocial personality disorder
Patient or population: adults with antisocial personality disorder Setting: outpatient Intervention: social problem‐solving therapy + psychoeducation Comparison: treatment‐as‐usual
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with treatment‐as‐usual	Risk with social problem‐solving therapy + psychoeducation
Aggression	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	No data available
Reconviction	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	No data available
Global state/functioning	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	No data available
Social functioning Assessed by: Social Functioning Questionnaire (8 items rated on 4‐point scale; anchors vary across items; high score = poor outcome) Timing of assessment: 6 months	The mean social functioning score in the control group was 11.78 points	The mean social functioning score in the intervention group was 1.60 points lower (5.43 lower to 2.23 higher)	‐	17 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa	‐
Adverse events	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	No data available
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RCT: Randomised controlled trial.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence (Schünemann 2013) High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

^aEvidence downgraded three levels overall. We downgraded one level for limitations in the design/implementation suggested possible risk of bias, one level for indirectness (the outcome was measured by questionnaire), and one level for imprecision due to optimal information size criterion not being met.