Table 6.

Key factors of Somatic Experiencing (SE)

Study	Overall Finding
[11] Olssen (2013)	(1) Increasing body awareness (the body leads; the body speaks; finish what the body started; the body survives)	(2) Treatment at the client’s pace (going slowly; client readiness & safety; client adjusted & settled within present environment; balancing moving forward with not flooding; educating & coaching)	(3) Client’s empowerment (building distress tolerance; developing a positive resource toolbox; quick & deep healing; increasing client independence; effective symptom management)
[12] McMahon (2017)	Importance of fit between client and practitioner (conceptualization of trauma; psychoeducation of the SE approach; clients not benefiting from SE; self-awareness of the SE practitioners)
[13] Hays (2014)	(1) Approach (Personal Rational & Background; Use of Touch; Psychoeducation & Supervision)	(2) Effects of integration (External client relational changes; Resolution/Reduction of symptoms; Value of integration; Risks & Deficits of integration)	(3) Evidence-Based Best Practices (Need for well-designed studies; Limitations & biases)
[14] Gomes Silva (2014)	(1) SE + touch & movement sessions show higher ratings on scale than classical SE sessions [from: Self-assessment (self-developed rating scale)]	(2) Stronger sensory-motor integration & more discharge energy in SE + touch & movement sessions than in classic SE sessions [from external assessment (adjectivations)]
[15] Nickerson (2015)	Conclusion: Cultural understanding of the concept of trauma and therapy too different to be able to identify impact factors.
[16] Ellegaard and Pedersen (2012)	(1) Significance of previous experiences;	(2) Restrictions in everyday life;	(3) Restoration of inner resources