Cited by 109Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics

The Efficacy of Metacognitive Training for Delusions in Patients With Schizophrenia: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Informs Evidence‐Based Practice

Liu, Yu‐Chen, Tang, Chia‐Chun, Hung, Tsai‐Tzu, Tsai, Pei‐Ching, Lin, Mei‐Feng·2018·Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing

Abstract

Background: Metacognitive training (MCT) was developed in 2007 and widely used to modify the delusions for patient with schizophrenia. However, its effectiveness remains unclear. Aims: To investigate the overall effectiveness of MCT for delusion in schizophrenia patients from 2007 to 2016, and to investigate the variables (intervention approach, intervention dose, and participant factors) of an MCT study that could influence the effect size. Methods: Parallel‐arm design of MCT for delusions published from 2007 to 2016 were collected and then cross‐referenced using these keywords: delusion (psychosis or psychotic or schizophrenia) and metacognitive (training or therapy or intervention). The quality of the studies was evaluated and the effect size and the moderating variables of MCT on delusion were determined. Results: A total of 11 studies on the effect of MCT for delusion were investigated. The MCT had a moderate immediate postintervention effect (g = −0.38) and a lasting effect after 6 months (g = −0.35). In terms of immediate effect, moderating variables with significant differences between them were (a) individual approach versus group‐based approach and mixed approach, and (b) eastern country versus western country. Linking Evidence to Action: MCT could be used as a valuable nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce delusions in clinical settings. The individual modularized MCT approach had a beneficial effect and is recommended to healthcare professionals as an application for patients with schizophrenia or delusional disorder.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/wvn.12282

Cites

38 of 38 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
Liu, Y., Tang, C., Hung, T., Tsai, P., & Lin, M.
Affiliations
  • National Cheng Kung University (TW)
  • Purdue University in Indianapolis (US)
  • Chia-Yi Christian Hospital (TW)
Corresponding author
Lin, Mei‐Feng
Venue
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-02-28
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
130-139
ISSN
  • 1545-102X (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-6787
OpenAlex
W2793334816
Cited by
109
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing (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 › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Keywords
metacognitive training, delusions, schizophrenia, delusional disorder, psychosis, non-pharmacological treatment, intervention dosage, moderators of effect size, evidence-based practice
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Delusions, Humans, Schizophrenia, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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