Clayton Jeffrey, Danielle Penney, Geneviève Sauvé, Daniel Mendelson, Élisabeth Thibaudeau, Steffen Moritz, Adèle Hotte-Meunier, Martin Lepage
{"title":"Does metacognitive training for psychosis (MCT) improve neurocognitive performance? A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Clayton Jeffrey, Danielle Penney, Geneviève Sauvé, Daniel Mendelson, Élisabeth Thibaudeau, Steffen Moritz, Adèle Hotte-Meunier, Martin Lepage","doi":"10.1016/j.schres.2024.12.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Metacognitive training for psychosis (MCT) offers benefits for addressing hallmark deficits/symptoms in schizophrenia spectrum disorders including reductions in cognitive biases and positive/negative symptoms as well as improvements in social cognition and functioning. However, differing results exist regarding the relationship between MCT and neurocognition. A comprehensive understanding of the nature of this relationship would significantly contribute to the existing literature and our understanding of the potential added value of MCT as a cognitive intervention for psychosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Across eleven electronic databases, 1312 sources were identified, and 14 studies examining MCT and neurocognition in psychosis were included in this review. Measures of estimated effect sizes were calculated with Hedge's g, moderator analyses used Cochrane's Q statistic and significance tests to measure group differences according to control conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies, 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 non-RCT, were included in the main meta-analyses, consisting of 673 participants (n<sub>MCT</sub> = 345, n<sub>control</sub> = 328). When comparing MCT against control interventions, non-significant differences in estimated effect sizes were observed across all neurocognitive domains when evaluating pre-post changes (g ≤ 0.1, p > .05). Two additional studies corroborated these results in a narrative review.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest that when compared against control conditions, MCT does not pose a statistically meaningful benefit to neurocognitive performance. General practice/learning effects are likely the main contributor that explains improvement in neurocognitive performance, and not a difference of intervention allocation when considering MCT against the included control comparators. These findings help establish the specificity of the effects of MCT.</p>","PeriodicalId":21417,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia Research","volume":"275 ","pages":"79-86"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2024.12.004","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Metacognitive training for psychosis (MCT) offers benefits for addressing hallmark deficits/symptoms in schizophrenia spectrum disorders including reductions in cognitive biases and positive/negative symptoms as well as improvements in social cognition and functioning. However, differing results exist regarding the relationship between MCT and neurocognition. A comprehensive understanding of the nature of this relationship would significantly contribute to the existing literature and our understanding of the potential added value of MCT as a cognitive intervention for psychosis.
Methods: Across eleven electronic databases, 1312 sources were identified, and 14 studies examining MCT and neurocognition in psychosis were included in this review. Measures of estimated effect sizes were calculated with Hedge's g, moderator analyses used Cochrane's Q statistic and significance tests to measure group differences according to control conditions.
Results: Twelve studies, 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 non-RCT, were included in the main meta-analyses, consisting of 673 participants (nMCT = 345, ncontrol = 328). When comparing MCT against control interventions, non-significant differences in estimated effect sizes were observed across all neurocognitive domains when evaluating pre-post changes (g ≤ 0.1, p > .05). Two additional studies corroborated these results in a narrative review.
Conclusion: These findings suggest that when compared against control conditions, MCT does not pose a statistically meaningful benefit to neurocognitive performance. General practice/learning effects are likely the main contributor that explains improvement in neurocognitive performance, and not a difference of intervention allocation when considering MCT against the included control comparators. These findings help establish the specificity of the effects of MCT.
期刊介绍：
As official journal of the Schizophrenia International Research Society (SIRS) Schizophrenia Research is THE journal of choice for international researchers and clinicians to share their work with the global schizophrenia research community. More than 6000 institutes have online or print (or both) access to this journal - the largest specialist journal in the field, with the largest readership!
Schizophrenia Research''s time to first decision is as fast as 6 weeks and its publishing speed is as fast as 4 weeks until online publication (corrected proof/Article in Press) after acceptance and 14 weeks from acceptance until publication in a printed issue.
The journal publishes novel papers that really contribute to understanding the biology and treatment of schizophrenic disorders; Schizophrenia Research brings together biological, clinical and psychological research in order to stimulate the synthesis of findings from all disciplines involved in improving patient outcomes in schizophrenia.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
