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

Clicks: 413
ID: 48579
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #30 of 510 articles by views in Frontiers in psychology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 510 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
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. 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. 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' = 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 ( = 8) and follow-up ( = 7), respectively. 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.
Reference Key
normann2018thefrontiers Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Normann, Nicoline;Morina, Nexhmedin;
Journal Frontiers in psychology
Year 2018
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02211
URL
Keywords
meta-analysis anxiety depression psychopathology psychotherapy mental disorders metacognitive therapy

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.