Metacognitive training for schizophrenia spectrum patients: a meta-analysis on outcome studies

Oosterhout, B. van; Smit, Filip; Krabbendam, Lydia; Castelein, S.; Staring, A.B.P.; Gaag, Mark van der

doi:10.1017/s0033291715001105

Cited by 67 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(105 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Meta-analyses [9][10] indicate that the approach exerts a weak to moderate effect on positive symptoms generally, and delusions specifically, as well as jumping to conclusions. The most recent meta-analysis [10], which builds upon the largest body of empirical studies, demonstrates that positive symptoms (g = −0.34) and delusions (g = −0.41) are reduced at a small to moderate effect size, while for acceptance/subjective effectiveness a large effect is found (g = −0.84).…”

Section: Metacognitive Training In Psychosis (Mct)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is metacognitive training for psychosis effective?

Moritz

Woodward

Balzan

2016

Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Metacognitive Training In Psychosis (Mct)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is metacognitive training for psychosis effective?

Moritz

Woodward

Balzan

2016

Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As described in our review protocol (Kühne et al, ), previous narrative and systematic reviews conclude positive effects for MCTherap (Normann, van Emmerik, & Morina, ; Wells, ) and MCTrain (Eichner & Berna, ; Liu, Tang, Hung, Tsai, & Lin, ; Moritz et al, ), but their results are limited by methodological shortcomings, especially in regard to the search and selection of the primary studies, the investigated mental disorders, and the systematic evaluation of quality of evidence and risk of bias. Also, meta‐analyses report inconsistent findings (Jiang, Zhang, Zhu, Li, & Li, ; van Oosterhout et al, ). Thus, a comprehensive and methodologically sound systematic review that covers the existing evidence including RCTs and NRCTs of metacognitive interventions in different mental disorders is needed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults—A systematic review and meta‐analysis (METACOG)

Philipp

Kriston

Lanio

et al. 2018

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders. We searched electronic databases and included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing metacognitive interventions with other treatments in adults with mental disorders. Primary effectiveness and acceptability outcomes were symptom severity and dropout, respectively. We performed random‐effects meta‐analyses. We identified Metacognitive Training (MCTrain), Metacognitive Therapy (MCTherap), and Metacognition Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT). We included 49 trials with 2,609 patients. In patients with schizophrenia, MCTrain was more effective than a psychological treatment (cognitive remediation, SMD = −0.39). It bordered significance when compared with standard or other psychological treatments. In a post hoc analysis, across all studies, the pooled effect was significant (SMD = −0.31). MCTrain was more effective than standard treatment in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (SMD = −0.40). MCTherap was more effective than a waitlist in patients with depression (SMD = −2.80), posttraumatic stress disorder (SMD = −2.36), and psychological treatments (cognitive–behavioural) in patients with anxiety (SMD = −0.46). In patients with depression, MCTherap was not superior to psychological treatment (cognitive–behavioural). For MERIT, the database was too small to allow solid conclusions. Acceptability of metacognitive interventions among patients was high on average. Methodological quality was mostly unclear or moderate. Metacognitive interventions are likely to be effective in alleviating symptom severity in mental disorders. Although their add‐on value against existing psychological interventions awaits to be established, potential advantages are their low threshold and economy.

show abstract

“…Moritz and colleagues have carried out numerous studies investigating metacognitive training that focuses on cognitive biases associated with attributional style and jumping to conclusions (Moritz, Vitzthum, Randjbar, Veckenstedt, & Woodward, 2010). There have been previous reviews relating to these definitions (Lysaker et al, 2013;van Oosterhout et al, 2016). Another influential line of research has focused on the metacognitive factors implicated in the Wells and Matthews Self-Regulatory Executive Function (S-REF)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis of metacognitive beliefs as implicated in the self-regulatory executive function model in clinical psychosis

Sellers

Varese

Wells

et al. 2017

Schizophrenia Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis investigated whether the five metacognitive beliefs implicated in the Self-Regulatory Executive Function (S-REF) model (Wells & Matthews, 1994;Wells & Matthews, 1996) are elevated in people with clinical psychosis compared to people with emotional disorder and non-psychiatric controls. The review followed guidance set-out in the PRISMA statement. Primary analyses compared summary effect sizes on each sub-scale of the Metacognitions Questionnaire (MCQ) for people with psychosis and non-psychiatric controls; and people with psychosis and people with emotional disorder. Eleven eligible studies were identified comprised of 568 psychosis participants, 212 emotional disorder participants and 776 nonpsychiatric controls. Findings indicated that people with psychosis had higher scores on all sub-scales of the MCQ compared to non-psychiatric controls; and higher scores on the positive beliefs about worry sub-scale compared to people with emotional disorder. This suggests metacognitive beliefs may be associated with the presence of psychological disorder and distress in general, rather than specific diagnoses. Implications for models of psychosis and treatment are discussed.

show abstract

Metacognitive training for schizophrenia spectrum patients: a meta-analysis on outcome studies

Cited by 67 publications

References 59 publications

Is metacognitive training for psychosis effective?

Is metacognitive training for psychosis effective?

Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults—A systematic review and meta‐analysis (METACOG)

A meta-analysis of metacognitive beliefs as implicated in the self-regulatory executive function model in clinical psychosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About