Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Bachelor Thesis (1)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- systematic review (2) (remove)
Institute
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.
As digital media infiltrate an increasingly greater proportion of our lives, concern about the possibility of various forms of technology addictions has emerged. For technology addiction, researchers have developed a variety of self-reported scales in areas such as Internet, smartphones, videogames, social network sites (SNS) or television. However, no uniform criteria or definition exists for technology addiction. Utilized dimensions of technology addiction, to measure specific outcomes, lack a conceptual standard. Therefore, linkages between technology areas dimensions have not been examined in a broader way by the research community, in order to develop a uniform technology addiction scale.
In this regard, firstly, a theoretical model was developed in order to extract common technology dimensions. Secondly, a systematic literature review in the areas of Internet, smartphone, video games and SNS was conducted in order to extract the dimensions used. To identify relevant studies, nine databases (GoogleScholar, ScienceDirect, PubMed, EmeraldInsight, Wiley, SpringerLink, ACM, iEEE and JSTOR) were searched, producing 4698 results, and 50 studies met the inclusion criteria. Thirdly, the developed theoretical model was utilized in order to determine the dimension in each of the identified scales.
Based on analysis of the dimensional distributions, the findings suggest that there are common dimensions across areas of technology such as “compulsive use” and “negative outcomes” but also differences in dimensions across areas such as “social comfort” and “mood regulation”, which are more used in the area of SNS. Moreover, new dimensions such as “cognitive absorption” or “utility and function loss" for technology addiction were extracted, which should be considered as these have not yet been researched in a broader way. In addition, no gold standard for the conceptual criteria or definition for technology addiction has been developed yet.