Erik Andersson, Kristina Aspvall, Greta Schettini, Martin Kraepelien, Josefin Särnholm, Gro Janne Wergeland, Lars-Göran Öst
{"title":"元认知干预对精神疾病的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Erik Andersson, Kristina Aspvall, Greta Schettini, Martin Kraepelien, Josefin Särnholm, Gro Janne Wergeland, Lars-Göran Öst","doi":"10.1080/16506073.2024.2434920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Metacognitive interventions have received increasing interest the last decade and there is a need to synthesize the evidence of these type of interventions. The current study is an updated systematic review and meta-analysis where we investigated the efficacy of metacognitive interventions for adults with psychiatric disorders. We included randomized controlled trials that investigated either metacognitive therapy (MCT; developed by Wells) or metacognitive training (MCTraining; developed by Moritz). Ovid MEDLINE, Embase OVID, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published until May 2024. The final analyses included 21 MCT- and 28 MCTraining studies (in total 3239 individuals). Results showed that MCT was more efficacious than both waiting-list control conditions (<i>g</i> = 1.84) as well as other forms of cognitive behavior therapies (<i>g</i> = 0.43). MCTraining was superior to treatment as usual (<i>g</i> = 0.45), other psychological treatments (<i>g</i> = 0.46) and placebo conditions (<i>g</i> = 0.15). Many of the included studies lacked data on blinding procedures, reporting of inter-rater reliability, treatment adherence, competence, treatment expectancy and pre-registration procedures. We conclude that both MCT and MCTraining are probably efficacious treatments but that future studies need to incorporate more quality aspects in their trial designs.</p>","PeriodicalId":10535,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"276-302"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of metacognitive interventions for psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Erik Andersson, Kristina Aspvall, Greta Schettini, Martin Kraepelien, Josefin Särnholm, Gro Janne Wergeland, Lars-Göran Öst\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16506073.2024.2434920\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Metacognitive interventions have received increasing interest the last decade and there is a need to synthesize the evidence of these type of interventions. The current study is an updated systematic review and meta-analysis where we investigated the efficacy of metacognitive interventions for adults with psychiatric disorders. We included randomized controlled trials that investigated either metacognitive therapy (MCT; developed by Wells) or metacognitive training (MCTraining; developed by Moritz). Ovid MEDLINE, Embase OVID, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published until May 2024. The final analyses included 21 MCT- and 28 MCTraining studies (in total 3239 individuals). Results showed that MCT was more efficacious than both waiting-list control conditions (<i>g</i> = 1.84) as well as other forms of cognitive behavior therapies (<i>g</i> = 0.43). MCTraining was superior to treatment as usual (<i>g</i> = 0.45), other psychological treatments (<i>g</i> = 0.46) and placebo conditions (<i>g</i> = 0.15). Many of the included studies lacked data on blinding procedures, reporting of inter-rater reliability, treatment adherence, competence, treatment expectancy and pre-registration procedures. We conclude that both MCT and MCTraining are probably efficacious treatments but that future studies need to incorporate more quality aspects in their trial designs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"276-302\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2024.2434920\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2024.2434920","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of metacognitive interventions for psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Metacognitive interventions have received increasing interest the last decade and there is a need to synthesize the evidence of these type of interventions. The current study is an updated systematic review and meta-analysis where we investigated the efficacy of metacognitive interventions for adults with psychiatric disorders. We included randomized controlled trials that investigated either metacognitive therapy (MCT; developed by Wells) or metacognitive training (MCTraining; developed by Moritz). Ovid MEDLINE, Embase OVID, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published until May 2024. The final analyses included 21 MCT- and 28 MCTraining studies (in total 3239 individuals). Results showed that MCT was more efficacious than both waiting-list control conditions (g = 1.84) as well as other forms of cognitive behavior therapies (g = 0.43). MCTraining was superior to treatment as usual (g = 0.45), other psychological treatments (g = 0.46) and placebo conditions (g = 0.15). Many of the included studies lacked data on blinding procedures, reporting of inter-rater reliability, treatment adherence, competence, treatment expectancy and pre-registration procedures. We conclude that both MCT and MCTraining are probably efficacious treatments but that future studies need to incorporate more quality aspects in their trial designs.
期刊介绍:
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is a peer reviewed, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the application of behavioural and cognitive sciences to clinical psychology and psychotherapy. The journal publishes state-of-the-art scientific articles within: - clinical and health psychology - psychopathology - behavioural medicine - assessment - treatment - theoretical issues pertinent to behavioural, cognitive and combined cognitive behavioural therapies With the number of high quality contributions increasing, the journal has been able to maintain a rapid publication schedule, providing readers with the latest research in the field.