Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (4)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- systematic review (4) (remove)
Institute
- Department Psychologie (4) (remove)
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.
This study examined the effectiveness of psychological interventions for severe health anxiety (SHA) regarding somatic symptoms (SS) and health anxiety (HA). The databases Web of Science, EBSCO, and CENTRAL were searched on May 15, 2019, May 16, 2019, and August 5, 2019, respectively. Eighteen randomized controlled trials (N = 2,050) met the inclusion criteria (i.e., hypochondriasis, illness anxiety disorder or somatic symptom disorder with elevated HA being assessed with validated interviews: use of standardized outcome measures). Two reviewers independently evaluated the studies' risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) tool. Overall, psychological interventions were significantly more effective than waitlist, treatment-as-usual, or placebo post-treatment (g(SS) = 0.70, g(HA) = 1.11) and at follow-up (g(SS) = 0.33, g(HA)= 0.70). CBT outperformed other psychological interventions or pharmacotherapy for HA post- treatment (Hedge's g(HA) = 0.81). The number of sessions did not significantly predict the effect sizes. In sum, psychological interventions were effective for SHA, but the generalizability of the results for SS is limited, because only two high-quatity trials contributed to the comparison.
Little is known about the current state of research on the involvement of young people in hate speech. Thus, this systematic review presents findings on a) the prevalence of hate speech among children and adolescents and on hate speech definitions that guide prevalence assessments for this population; and b) the theoretical and empirical overlap of hate speech with related concepts. This review was guided by the Cochrane approach. To be included, publications were required to deal with real-life experiences of hate speech, to provide empirical data on prevalence for samples aged 5 to 21 years and they had to be published in academic formats. Included publications were full-text coded using two raters (kappa = .80) and their quality was assessed. The string-guided electronic search (ERIC, SocInfo, Psycinfo, Psyndex) yielded 1,850 publications. Eighteen publications based on 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and their findings were systematized. Twelve publications were of medium quality due to minor deficiencies in their theoretical or methodological foundations. All studies used samples of adolescents and none of younger children. Nine out of 10 studies applied quantitative methodologies. Eighteen publications based on 10 studies were included. Results showed that frequencies for hate speech exposure were higher than those related to victimization and perpetration. Definitions of hate speech and assessment instruments were heterogeneous. Empirical evidence for an often theorized overlap between hate speech and bullying was found. The paper concludes by presenting a definition of hate speech, including implications for practice, policy, and research.
An area of increasing interest amongst teachers and researchers is the availability of tools for the design and implementation of literacy interventions with Spanish speaking children. The present systematic literature review contributes to this need by summarizing available findings on evidence-based literacy interventions (EBI) for children from first to third year of primary school. Our results are based on 20 EBI that aimed at improving at least one of the critical components mentioned by the NRP (2000): phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. As 90% of the studies were completed with English-speaking children, we critically discussed the applicability of this evidence to the specific context of Spanish-speaking countries. Although many of the general characteristics of the EBI completed with English speaking children could also guide interventions in Spanish, it remains crucial to take into account structural differences between the orthographies of both languages. Moreover, we identified transversal strategies and implementation techniques that due to their universal character could also be useful for early literacy interventions in Spanish. (c) 2018 Fundacion Universitaria Konrad Lorenz. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/).