• DOI:10.1002/cpp.2345
• Corpus ID: 53872643

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

@article{Philipp2019EffectivenessOM,
  title={Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults-A systematic review and meta-analysis (METACOG).},
  author={Rebecca Philipp and Levente Kriston and Jana Lanio and Franziska K{\"u}hne and Martin H{\"a}rter and Steffen Moritz and Ramona Meister},
  journal={Clinical psychology \& psychotherapy},
  year={2019},
  volume={26 2},
  pages={
          227-240
        }
}

• R. Philipp, L. Kriston, +4 authors R. Meister
• Published 16 December 2018
• Psychology, Medicine
• Clinical psychology & psychotherapy

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.