Cited by 1Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

The metacognitive link between co-occurring intra- and interpersonal symptoms in major depression

Lefebvre, O., Mellas, L., Yon, V.·2023·L Encéphale

Abstract

Objectives Co-occurring symptoms in depressed people currently in a relationship are sometimes considered to be due to interpersonal variables like dyadic adjustment, or intrapersonal factors such as a lack of dispositional mindfulness. Recent theories of emotional distress have, however, proposed that metacognitive beliefs could be a better link between these frequently co-occurring symptoms in major depression.Methods In a French sample of depressed inpatients currently in a relationship (n=30), we conducted a mediation analysis to assess whether the score of the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 mediated the relation between on the one side the Beck depression inventory and on the other side the dyadic adjustment scale, the Beck anxiety inventory, and the five facets mindfulness questionnaire.Results By using a multiple linear regression and the Sobel test, we found that the Metacognitions Questionnaire fully mediated the association of depression severity with both anxiety and the affectionate expression of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and partially mediated that of the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire with depression severity.Conclusions These results obtained in a clinical sample gave support for the mediating role of dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs on some aspects of depressive symptomatology, as well as the likely metacognitive nature of important dispositional mindfulness facets. Limitations of this study are discussed, including its cross-sectional design as well as its sample size.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.encep.2022.03.004

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lefebvre, O., Mellas, L., & Yon, V.
Affiliations
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Amiens-Picardie (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Philippe Pinel (FR)
Corresponding author
Lefebvre, O.
Venue
L Encéphale
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-08
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
357-363
ISSN
0013-7006 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4291637170
Cited by
1
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
0.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • L Encéphale (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
major depressive disorder, metacognitive beliefs, Metacognitions Questionnaire-30, dyadic adjustment, trait mindfulness, anxiety, depression severity, couples, mediation
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Anxiety, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans

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