Objectives: Stroke is the third leading cause of disability worldwide, influencing the whole family's health and well-being. Dyadic (i.e., stroke survivor and family caregiver) psychoeducational intervention is a potential alternative to disease management and support, targeting at the dyads of stroke survivors and their caregivers as active participants in partnership. This review aimed to evaluate the current evidence on supporting the dyadic psychoeducational intervention for the functional and psychosocial health of stroke survivors' and their family caregivers. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Data sources: Nine English databases (Cochrane Library, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, PubMed, Web of Science and Digital Dissertation Consortium) and two Chinese databases (CNKI and Wanfang) were searched to identify eligible studies published from their inception to April 2020. Additional relevant studies were identified from the reference lists and bibliographies of the identified articles and a manual search of relevant journals. Review methods: Studies were searched using keywords based on the 'PICOS' framework. The eligibility of individual full-text articles was independently assessed by two reviewers in accordance with the selection criteria. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0. The main outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis whenever possible; otherwise, narrative syntheses were conducted. Results: Eleven studies with 1769 stroke survivors and 1578 family caregivers were identified. The meta-analysis of pooled data suggested that the dyadic psychoeducational intervention had a significant immediate (<1 month) effect on family caregivers' burden (SMD = −0.25, 95% CI: −0.50 to −0.01, p = 0.04) and a long-term (≥6 months) effect on survivors' quality of life (SMD = −0.30, 95% CI: −0.53 to −0.07, p = 0.01). Subgroup pooled analyses indicated that the interventions initiated in hospitals could significantly improve the survivors' functional independence immediately after intervention (SMD = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.72, p = 0.01). Conversely, the interventions initiated at home did not significantly affect this functional outcome. Conclusions: This review supports the notion that the dyadic psychoeducational intervention can be effective in improving the stroke survivors' functional independence and their family caregivers' burden for a short period and the survivors' quality of life in the long run. However, its effectiveness is not conclusive because other psychosocial health outcomes for the stroke survivors and their family caregivers have not yet been found to significantly improve after intervention. Therefore, further large-scale randomised controlled trials with a high-quality design are warranted to evaluate their effectiveness in diverse functional and psychosocial health outcomes for stroke survivors and their family caregivers.