元认知干预对精神疾病的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 4.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1080/16506073.2024.2434920
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

元认知干预在过去十年中受到越来越多的关注,有必要综合这些类型的干预的证据。目前的研究是一项更新的系统回顾和荟萃分析,我们调查了元认知干预对成人精神疾病的疗效。我们纳入了调查元认知疗法(MCT;或元认知训练(MCTraining;莫里茨发明的)。Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Ovid和PsycINFO检索到2024年5月之前发表的文章。最终的分析包括21项MCT和28项MCT训练研究(总共3239人)。结果显示,MCT比等候名单对照条件(g = 1.84)和其他形式的认知行为疗法(g = 0.43)更有效。MCTraining优于常规治疗(g = 0.45)、其他心理治疗(g = 0.46)和安慰剂治疗(g = 0.15)。许多纳入的研究缺乏关于盲法程序、评估者间可靠性报告、治疗依从性、能力、治疗预期和预注册程序的数据。我们得出结论,MCT和MCTraining都可能是有效的治疗方法,但未来的研究需要在试验设计中纳入更多的质量方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
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.
期刊最新文献
The psychometric properties of the Mini Social Phobia Inventory in a treatment seeking sample of children and their caregivers. A concentrated approach for treating OCD: a pilot study examining the feasibility and potential effectiveness of the Bergen Four Day Treatment in the U.S. Evaluating the reliability and validity of the Questionnaire on Well-Being: a validation study for a clinically informed measurement of subjective well-being. Understanding change from the patient perspective in a transdiagnostic Internet-based intervention for emotional disorders: a qualitative content analysis. Correction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1