18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Efficacy of Metacognitive Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      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: Metacognitive therapy (MCT) continues to gain increased ground as a treatment for psychological complaints. During the last years, several clinical trials on the efficacy of MCT have been published. The aim of the current study was to provide an updated meta-analytic review of the effect of MCT for psychological complaints.

          Methods: We conducted a systematic search of trials on MCT for young and adult patients with psychological complaints published until January 2018, using PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Trials with a minimum of 10 participants in the MCT condition were included.

          Results: A total of 25 studies that examined a variety of psychological complaints met our inclusion criteria, of which 15 were randomized controlled trials. We identified only one trial that was conducted with children and adolescents. In trials with adult patients, large uncontrolled effect size estimates from pre- to post-treatment and follow-up suggest that MCT is effective at reducing symptoms of the targeted primary complaints, anxiety, depression, and dysfunctional metacognitions. The comparison with waitlist control conditions also resulted in a large effect (Hedges' g = 2.06). The comparison of MCT to cognitive and behavioral interventions at post-treatment and at follow-up showed pooled effect sizes (Hedges' g) of 0.69 and 0.37 at post-treatment ( k = 8) and follow-up ( k = 7), respectively.

          Conclusions: Our findings indicate that MCT is an effective treatment for a range of psychological complaints. To date, strongest evidence exists for anxiety and depression. Current results suggest that MCT may be superior to other psychotherapies, including cognitive behavioral interventions. However, more trials with larger number of participants are needed in order to draw firm conclusions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Modelling cognition in emotional disorder: the S-REF model.

          Cognitive therapy techniques are applied to an ever-increasing range of psychological disorders. However, both basic methods and general theory of therapy have evolved more slowly. Although cognitive therapy is based on experimentally testable concepts derived from cognitive psychology, an integration of these areas capable of explaining cognitive-attentional phenomena and offering treatment Implications remains to be achieved. In this paper, we outline the Self-Regulatory Executive Function (S-REF) model of emotional disorder, which integrates information processing research with Beck's schema theory. The model advances understanding of the roles of stimulus-driven and voluntary control of cognition, procedural knowledge (beliefs), and of the interactions between different levels of information-processing. It also accounts for cognitive bias effects demonstrated in the experimental psychopathology literature. The model presents implications concerning not only what should be done in cognitive therapy, but how cognitive change may be most effectively accomplished.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The efficacy of metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression: a meta-analytic review.

            Metacognitive therapy (MCT) is a relatively new approach to treating mental disorders. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy of MCT in patients with mental disorders. A comprehensive literature search revealed 16 published as well as unpublished studies on the efficacy of MCT, of which nine were controlled trials. These studies report on 384 participants suffering from anxiety or depression. Treatment efficacy was examined using a random effects model. On primary outcome measures the aggregate within-group pre- to posttreatment and pretreatment to follow-up effect sizes for MCT were large (Hedges' g = 2.00 and 1.65, respectively). Within-group pre- to posttreatment changes in metacognitions were also large (Hedges' g = 1.18) and maintained at follow-up (Hedges' g = 1.31). Across the controlled trials, MCT was significantly more effective than both waitlist control groups (between-group Hedges' g = 1.81) as well as cognitive behavior therapy (CBT; between-group Hedges' g = 0.97). Results suggest that MCT is effective in treating disorders of anxiety and depression and is superior compared to waitlist control groups and CBT, although the latter finding should be interpreted with caution. The implications of these findings are limited by small sample sizes and few active control conditions. Future studies should include larger sample sizes and also include comparisons of MCT with other empirically supported therapies. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of metacognitive therapy and intolerance-of-uncertainty therapy for generalized anxiety disorder.

              This randomized controlled trial compared the effectiveness of metacognitive therapy (MCT) and intolerance-of-uncertainty therapy (IUT) for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in an outpatient context. Patients with GAD (N = 126) consecutively referred to an outpatient treatment center for anxiety disorder were randomly allocated to MCT, IUT, or a delayed treatment (DT) condition. Patients were treated individually for up to 14 sessions. Assessments were conducted before treatment (pretreatment), after the last treatment session (posttreatment), and six months after treatment had ended (follow-up). At posttreatment and follow-up assessments, substantial improvements were observed in both treatment conditions across all outcome variables. Both MCT and IUT, but not DT, produced significant reductions in GAD-specific symptoms with large effect sizes (ranging between 0.94 and 2.39) and high proportions of clinically significant change (ranging between 77% and 95%) on various outcome measures, and the vast majority of the patients (i.e., 91% in the MCT group, and 80% in the IUT group) no longer fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for GAD. Results further indicate that MCT produced better results than IUT. This was evident on most outcome measures, and also reflected in effect sizes and degree of clinical response and recovery. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                14 November 2018
                2018
                : 9
                : 2211
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen, Denmark
                [2] 2Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, University of Münster , Münster, Germany
                Author notes

                Edited by: Adrian Wells, University of Manchester, United Kingdom

                Reviewed by: Asle Hoffart, Modum Bad Psychiatric Center, Norway; Peter Fisher, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom

                *Correspondence: Nicoline Normann Nicoline.normann@ 123456psy.ku.dk

                This article was submitted to Clinical and Health Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02211
                6246690
                30487770
                91815c1b-9d96-4595-b3ef-9e45e1f460b6
                Copyright © 2018 Normann and Morina.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 06 July 2018
                : 25 October 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 53, Pages: 14, Words: 9946
                Categories
                Psychology
                Systematic Review

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                metacognitive therapy,meta-analysis,psychotherapy,anxiety,depression,psychopathology,mental disorders

                Comments

                Comment on this article