@misc{PhilippKristonLanioetal.2019,
  author    = {Philipp, Rebecca and Kriston, Levente and Lanio, Jana and K{\"u}hne, Franziska and H{\"a}rter, Martin and Moritz, Steffen and Meister, Ramona},
  title     = {Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults-A systematic review and meta-analysis (METACOG)},
  series = {Clinical psychology \& psychotherapy},
  volume    = {26},
  journal   = {Clinical psychology \& psychotherapy},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1063-3995},
  doi       = {10.1002/cpp.2345},
  pages     = {227 -- 240},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {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.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PhilippKristonKuehneetal.2020,
  author    = {Philipp, Rebecca and Kriston, Levente and K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Harter, Martin and Meister, Ramona},
  title     = {Concepts of metacognition in the treatment of patients with mental disorders},
  series = {Journal of rational emotive and cognitive behavior therapy},
  volume    = {38},
  journal   = {Journal of rational emotive and cognitive behavior therapy},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York, NY},
  issn      = {0894-9085},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10942-019-00333-3},
  pages     = {173 -- 183},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {While metacognitive interventions are gaining attention in the treatment of various mental disorders, a review of the literature showed that the term is often defined poorly and used for a variety of psychotherapeutic approaches that do not necessarily pursue the same goal. We give a summary of three metacognitive interventions which were developed within a sound theoretical framework-metacognitive therapy, metacognitive training, and metacognitively-oriented integrative psychotherapies-and discuss their similarities and distinctive features. We then offer an integrative operational definition of metacognitive interventions as goal-oriented treatments that target metacognitive content, which is characterized by the awareness and understanding of one's own thoughts and feelings as well as the thoughts and feelings of others. They aim to alleviate disorder-specific and individual symptoms by gaining more flexibility in cognitive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KuehneMeisterMaassetal.2019,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Meister, Ramona and Maass, Ulrike and Paunov, Tatjana and Weck, Florian},
  title     = {How reliable are therapeutic competence ratings?},
  series = {Cognitive therapy and research},
  volume    = {44},
  journal   = {Cognitive therapy and research},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0147-5916},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10608-019-10056-5},
  pages     = {241 -- 257},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Assessments of psychotherapeutic competencies play a crucial role in research and training. However, research on the reliability and validity of such assessments is sparse. This study aimed to provide an overview of the current evidence and to provide an average interrater reliability (IRR) of psychotherapeutic competence ratings. A systematic review was conducted, and 20 studies reported in 32 publications were collected. These 20 studies were included in a narrative synthesis, and 20 coefficients were entered into the meta-analysis. Most primary studies referred to cognitive-behavioral therapies and the treatment of depression, used the Cognitive Therapy Scale, based ratings on videos, and trained the raters. Our meta-analysis revealed a pooled ICC of 0.82, but at the same time severe heterogeneity. The evidence map highlighted a variety of variables related to competence assessments. Further aspects influencing the reliability of competence ratings and regarding the considerable heterogeneity are discussed in detail throughout the manuscript.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{BruettMeisterBerngesetal.2017,
  author    = {Br{\"u}tt, Anna Levke and Meister, Ramona and Bernges, Tabea and Moritz, Steffen and H{\"a}rter, Martin and Kriston, Levente and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Patient involvement in a systematic review},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualit{\"a}t im Gesundheitswesen},
  volume    = {127-128},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualit{\"a}t im Gesundheitswesen},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Jena},
  issn      = {1865-9217},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.zefq.2017.07.005},
  pages     = {56 -- 61},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Patient involvement (PI) in research is increasingly required as a means to improve relevance and meaningfulness of research results. PI has been widely promoted by the National Institute for Health Research in England in the last years. In Germany, widespread involvement of patients in research is still missing. The methods used to realize PI have been developed mainly in English research contexts, and detailed information on how to involve patients in systematic reviews is rare. Therefore, the aim of the study was that patients contribute and prioritize clinically relevant outcomes to a systematic review on meta-cognitive interventions, and to evaluate a patient workshop as well as patients' perceptions of research involvement. Seven patients with experience in psychiatric care participated in our workshop. They focused on outcomes pre-defined in the review protocol (e.g., meta-cognitive or cognitive changes, symptomatology, quality of life), neglected other outcomes (like satisfaction with treatment, acceptability), and added relevant new ones (e.g., scope of action/autonomy, applicability). Altogether, they valued the explicit workshop participation positively. However, some suggested to involve patients at an earlier stage and to adapt the amount of information given. Further systematic reviews would benefit from the involvement of patients in the definition of other components of the review question (like patients or interventions), in the interpretation of key findings or in drafting a lay summary.},
  language  = {en}
}