Cited by 19Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Session-specific effects of the Metacognitive Training for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (MCT-OCD)

Miegel, Franziska, Cludius, Barbara, Hottenrott, Birgit, Demiralay, Cüneyt, Sure, Anna, Jelinek, Lena·2020·Psychotherapy Research

Abstract

Objective: Most studies focus on overall treatment effects by assessing symptom severity before and after treatment, but few investigate session-specific effects of an intervention. The aim of the present study was to elucidate session-specific effects of a group therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) that targets cognitive biases known as the Metacognitive Training for OCD (MCT-OCD). Method: In an uncontrolled pilot trial, 44 inpatients with OCD participated in the MCT-OCD once a week over four weeks. Before and after each session, patients answered questionnaires on thought monitoring, control of thoughts, obsessions, compulsions, and mood. Results: Primary analyses using linear mixed-effect models showed that the module on control of thoughts (within-session effect) significantly reduced patients’ control of thoughts. Exploratory analyses displayed an improvement in thought monitoring, control of thoughts, obsessions, and compulsions over the treatment period. Control of thoughts decreaed after the module on biased attention/biased cognitive networks and compulsions reduced one week after the module on overestimation of threat/responsibility (between-session effect). More compulsions were reported one week after the module on thought-action fusion/control of thoughts. Conclusions: Certain MCT-OCD modules seemed to improve specific cognitive biases that might in turn act as mechanisms of change. The results are being used to revise the MCT-OCD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10503307.2019.1613582

Cites

65 of 65 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

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miegel, F., Cludius, B., Hottenrott, B., Demiralay, C., Sure, A., & Jelinek, L.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Miegel, Franziska
Venue
Psychotherapy Research
Published
2019-05-09
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
474-486
ISSN
  • 1050-3307 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4381
OpenAlex
W2944585417
Cited by
19
References
66
Citations by year
2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6
FWCI
3.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
obsessive-compulsive disorder, group therapy, cognitive biases, thought monitoring, thought-action fusion, overestimation of threat, compulsive behavior, obsession, mechanisms of change, inpatient care
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Affect, Humans, Obsessive Behavior, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Psychotherapy, Group

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