Cited by 56Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Decreasing self-reported cognitive biases and increasing clinical insight through meta-cognitive training in patients with chronic schizophrenia

Gawęda, Łukasz, Krężołek, Martyna, Olbryś, Joanna, Turska, Agnieszka, Kokoszka, Andrzej·2015·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

Background and objectives The aim of this study was to assess the impact of meta-cognitive training (MCT) on cognitive biases, symptoms, clinical insight, and general functioning among low-level functioning persons diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia who were attending a daily Community Social Support Group Program; we compared the treatment-as-usual (TAU) condition with the MCT + TAU condition.Methods Forty-four patients diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia were allocated to either the MCT + treatment-as-usual condition or the treatment-as-usual (TAU) condition. Delusion and hallucination severity, cognitive biases, clinical insight, and global functioning were assessed pre- and post-treatment (clinical trial NCT02187692).Results No significant changes were found in symptom severity as measured with the PSYRATS. Conversely, a medium to large effect size was observed for delusional ideation changes when assessed by the self-report measure (Paranoia Checklist). MCT was found to ameliorate cognitive biases as measured by the self-report scale at large effect size, however, no changes in jumping to conclusions (the Fish Task) and theory of mind deficits ("Reading the Mind in the Eyes" Test) were found in the behavioral tasks. MCT increased insight at large effect size. No changes in global functioning were found between the two conditions.Limitations Low intensity intervention. No follow-up assessment was provided. Only PSYRATS was assessed blind to patient allocation.Conclusions MCT has a beneficial effect on low-functioning chronic schizophrenic patients in ameliorating cognitive biases and increasing clinical insight.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.02.002

Cites

39 of 39 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
Gawęda, Ł., Krężołek, M., Olbryś, J., Turska, A., & Kokoszka, A.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Warsaw (PL)
  • The Maria Grzegorzewska University (PL)
  • Uniwersytet SWPS (PL)
Corresponding author
Gawęda, Łukasz
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-09
Volume
48
Pages
98-104
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036711867
Cited by
56
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (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
chronic schizophrenia, cognitive biases, clinical insight, delusional ideation, jumping to conclusions, theory of mind, global functioning, self-report measures
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adult, Chronic Disease, Delusions, Female, Hallucinations, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Paranoid Disorders, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Self Report

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