Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Document Type
- Review (2) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- meta-analysis (2) (remove)
Institute
- Department Psychologie (2) (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.
Efficacy of Psychotherapy with Children and Adolescents
Psychotherapeutic interventions require empirical as well as scientific assessment. Specifically, the proven efficacy of psychotherapy for children and adolescents is essential. Thus, studies examining treatment efficacy and meta-analyses are necessary to compare effect sizes of individual therapeutic interventions between treatment groups and waiting control groups. Assessment of 138 primary studies from 1993-2009 documented the efficacy of psychotherapy for children and adolescents. Furthermore, behavioural therapy outperformed non-behavioural interventions, as 90 % of behavioural interventions showed larger effect sizes compared to non-behavioural psychotherapy. Analysis of moderator variables demonstrated an improved treatment efficacy for individual therapy, inclusion of the family, treatment of internalised disorders, and in clinical samples. Stability of psychotherapeutic treatment effects over time was demonstrated.