TY - JOUR A1 - Philipp, Rebecca A1 - Kriston, Levente A1 - Lanio, Jana A1 - Kühne, Franziska A1 - Härter, Martin A1 - Moritz, Steffen A1 - Meister, Ramona T1 - Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults-A systematic review and meta-analysis (METACOG) JF - Clinical psychology & psychotherapy N2 - 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. KW - mental disorders KW - meta-analysis KW - metacognition KW - psychotherapy KW - systematic review Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2345 SN - 1063-3995 SN - 1099-0879 VL - 26 IS - 2 SP - 227 EP - 240 PB - Wiley CY - Hoboken ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Brütt, Anna Levke A1 - Meister, Ramona A1 - Bernges, Tabea A1 - Moritz, Steffen A1 - Härter, Martin A1 - Kriston, Levente A1 - Kühne, Franziska T1 - Patient involvement in a systematic review BT - Development and pilot evaluation of a patient workshop JF - Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen N2 - 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. N2 - Die Beteiligung von Patientinnen und Patienten in der Forschung wird zunehmend gefordert, um die Relevanz und Aussagefähigkeit von Forschungsergebnissen zu verbessern. Während das National Institute for Health Research in England die Patientenbeteiligung seit Jahren fördert, fehlt es in Deutschland noch weitgehend an flächendeckender Forschungsbeteiligung. Zudem liegen Informationen über Methoden der Patientenbeteiligung hauptsächlich für englische Forschungskontexte vor, und detaillierte Informationen zur Patientenbeteiligung in systematischen Reviews sind lückenhaft. Das Ziel der Studie war es daher, dass Patienten klinisch relevante Zielgrößen zu einem systematischen Review zu metakognitiven Interventionen beitragen und priorisieren und dass sie einen Patientenworkshop und ihre wahrgenommene Forschungsbeteiligung bewerten. Sieben psychiatrieerfahrene Patienten nahmen an unserem Workshop teil. Sie benannten Zielgrößen, die im Reviewprotokoll schon vorgesehen waren (z.B. metakognitive und kognitive Veränderungen, Symptomatik, Lebensqualität), vernachlässigten andere Endpunkte (z.B. Zufriedenheit, Akzeptanz) und fügten neue Zielgrößen hinzu (z.B. Handlungsspielräume/Autonomie, Anwendbarkeit). Die Patienten würdigten die Workshopteilnahme insgesamt. Einige empfahlen jedoch eine frühere Beteiligung und eine Anpassung der gegebenen Informationen. Zukünftige systematische Reviews können von der Beteiligung von Patienten bei der Definition weiterer Bestandteile der Fragestellung (wie Population oder Interventionen), der Interpretation zentraler Ergebnisse oder der Formulierung einer allgemeinverständlichen Zusammenfassung profitieren. T2 - Beteiligung von Patienten an einem systematischen Review: Entwicklung und Pilotevaluation eines Patientenworkshops KW - patient involvement KW - patient participation KW - consumer participation KW - systematic review KW - meta-analysis Y1 - 2017 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2017.07.005 SN - 1865-9217 SN - 2212-0289 VL - 127-128 SP - 56 EP - 61 PB - Elsevier CY - Jena ER -