Metacognitive training (MCT) for schizophrenia improves cognitive insight: A randomized controlled trial in a Chinese sample with schizophrenia spectrum disorders
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Metacognitive training is linked to greater improvements in self-reflectiveness relative to treatment as usual.
“Lam et al 181 reported that MCT was linked to greater improvements in self-reflectiveness relative to treatment as usual.”
From Insight in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: relationship with behavior, mood and perceived quality of life, underlying causes and emerging treatments (2018) · cites this paper as [181]
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