Cited by 62Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Metacognitive training (MCT) for schizophrenia improves cognitive insight: A randomized controlled trial in a Chinese sample with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

Lam, Kino C.K., Ho, Christy P.S., Wa, Jimmy C., Chan, Salina M.Y., Yam, Kevin K.N., Yeung, Odelia S.F., Wong, Willy C.H., Balzan, Ryan P.·2015·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Metacognitive training (MCT) is a group-based treatment program for people with schizophrenia that targets the cognitive biases thought to contribute to the pathogenesis and maintenance of delusions. Although effective in reducing the severity of delusions, the influence of MCT on cognitive insight, and its feasibility in Chinese culture, has yet to be investigated. The present randomized-controlled trial attempted to address these inconsistencies. A Chinese sample of 80 participants with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was randomized to the eight-module MCT program or continued treatment as usual (TAU). All participants were assessed using the Beck Cognitive Insight Scale, which assesses two components of cognitive insight (self-reflectiveness and self-certainty). Participants in the MCT condition subjectively rated their satisfaction with the training. Retention rates were high after four-weeks of MCT (n = 38) or TAU (n = 39). Clients randomized into the MCT condition rated the program favourably and showed significant improvements in cognitive insight (i.e., increased self-reflectiveness), relative to TAU controls, who exhibited decreases in cognitive insight at follow-up. These findings suggest that the MCT program is not only subjectively efficacious in Chinese samples, but also improves metacognitive awareness of the processes underlying delusional symptoms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2014.11.008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 44 · Cited by 62

Authors
Lam, K. C. K., Ho, C. P. S., Wa, J. C., Chan, S. M. Y., Yam, K. K. N., Yeung, O. S. F., Wong, W. C. H., & Balzan, R. P.
Affiliations
  • Kwai Chung Hospital (CN)
  • Flinders University (AU)
Corresponding author
Balzan, Ryan P.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
64
Pages
38-42
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090946380
Cited by
62
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
metacognitive training, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, cognitive insight, self-reflection, self-certainty, delusions, cognitive biases, metacognition, Chinese patients, treatment retention, treatment satisfaction
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adult, China, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Group, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review