12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Metacognitive reflection and insight therapy (MERIT) for patients with schizophrenia

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Impaired metacognition is associated with difficulties in the daily functioning of people with psychosis. Metacognition can be divided into four domains: Self-Reflection, Understanding the Other's Mind, Decentration, and Mastery. This study investigated whether Metacognitive Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT) can be used to improve metacognition.

          Methods

          This study is a randomized controlled trial. Patients in the active condition ( n = 35) received forty MERIT sessions, the control group ( n = 35) received treatment as usual. Multilevel intention-to-treat and completers analyses were performed for metacognition and secondary outcomes (psychotic symptomatology, cognitive insight, Theory of Mind, empathy, depression, self-stigma, quality of life, social functioning, and work readiness).

          Results

          Eighteen out of 35 participants finished treatment, half the drop-out stemmed from therapist attrition ( N = 5) or before the first session ( N = 4). Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated that in both groups metacognition improved between pre- and post-measurements, with no significant differences between the groups. Patients who received MERIT continued to improve, while the control group returned to baseline, leading to significant differences at follow-up. Completers analysis (18/35) showed improvements on the Metacognition Assessment Scale (MAS-A) scales Self Reflectivity and metacognitive Mastery at follow-up. No effects were found on secondary outcomes.

          Conclusions

          On average, participants in the MERIT group were, based on MAS-A scores, at follow-up more likely to recognize their thoughts as changeable rather than as facts. MERIT might be useful for patients whose self-reflection is too limited to benefit from other therapies. Given how no changes were found in secondary measures, further research is needed. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Schizophrenia: Effect Sizes, Clinical Models, and Methodological Rigor

          Background: Guidance in the United States and United Kingdom has included cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis (CBTp) as a preferred therapy. But recent advances have widened the CBTp targets to other symptoms and have different methods of provision, eg, in groups. Aim: To explore the effect sizes of current CBTp trials including targeted and nontargeted symptoms, modes of action, and effect of methodological rigor. Method: Thirty-four CBTp trials with data in the public domain were used as source data for a meta-analysis and investigation of the effects of trial methodology using the Clinical Trial Assessment Measure (CTAM). Results: There were overall beneficial effects for the target symptom (33 studies; effect size = 0.400 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.252, 0.548]) as well as significant effects for positive symptoms (32 studies), negative symptoms (23 studies), functioning (15 studies), mood (13 studies), and social anxiety (2 studies) with effects ranging from 0.35 to 0.44. However, there was no effect on hopelessness. Improvements in one domain were correlated with improvements in others. Trials in which raters were aware of group allocation had an inflated effect size of approximately 50%–100%. But rigorous CBTp studies showed benefit (estimated effect size = 0.223; 95% CI = 0.017, 0.428) although the lower end of the CI should be noted. Secondary outcomes (eg, negative symptoms) were also affected such that in the group of methodologically adequate studies the effect sizes were not significant. Conclusions: As in other meta-analyses, CBTp had beneficial effect on positive symptoms. However, psychological treatment trials that make no attempt to mask the group allocation are likely to have inflated effect sizes. Evidence considered for psychological treatment guidance should take into account specific methodological detail.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The QCAE: a Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy.

            Empathy has been inconsistently defined and inadequately measured. This research aimed to produce a new and rigorously developed questionnaire. Exploratory (n₁ = 640) and confirmatory (n₂ = 318) factor analyses were employed to develop the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE). Principal components analysis revealed 5 factors (31 items). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed this structure in an independent sample. The hypothesized 2-factor structure (cognitive and affective empathy) was tested and provided the best and most parsimonious fit to the data. Gender differences, convergent validity, and construct validity were examined. The QCAE is a valid tool for assessing cognitive and affective empathy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A new instrument for measuring insight: the Beck Cognitive Insight Scale.

              The clinical measurements of insight have focused primarily on patients' unawareness of their having a mental disorder and of their need for treatment ([Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 89 (1994) 62; Am. J. Psychiatry 150 (1993) 873]; etc.). A complementary approach focuses on some of the cognitive processes involved in patients' re-evaluation of their anomalous experiences and of their specific misinterpretations: distancing, objectivity, perspective, and self-correction. The Beck Cognitive Insight Scale (BCIS) was developed to evaluate patients' self-reflectiveness and their overconfidence in their interpretations of their experiences. A 15-item self-report questionnaire was subjected to a principle components analysis, yielding a 9-item self-reflectiveness subscale and a 6-item self-certainty subscale. A composite index of the BCIS reflecting cognitive insight was calculated by subtracting the score for the self-certainty scale from that of the self-reflectiveness scale. The scale demonstrated good convergent, discriminant, and construct validity: (a) the BCIS composite index showed a significant correlation with being aware of having a mental disorder on the Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder (SUMD; Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 51 (1994) 826) and the self-reflectiveness subscale was significantly correlated with being aware of delusions on the SUMD, (b) the composite index score of the BCIS differentiated inpatients with psychotic diagnoses from inpatients without psychotic diagnoses, and (c) in a separate study, change scores on the BCIS were significantly correlated with change scores on positive and negative symptoms. The results provided tentative support for the validity of the BCIS. Suggestions were made for further investigation of the cognitive processes involved in identifying and correcting erroneous beliefs and misinterpretations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Psychological Medicine
                Psychol. Med.
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                0033-2917
                1469-8978
                January 2019
                April 25 2018
                January 2019
                : 49
                : 2
                : 303-313
                Article
                10.1017/S0033291718000855
                29692285
                051f451f-5832-42be-8874-30316e699c2e
                © 2019

                https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article