Group meta-cognitive therapy and depression in women with breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in Iranian women. They will experience a mental health problem like depression before, during or after treatment. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of group metacognitive therapy on depression, cognitive-emotional regulation, and meta-cognitive beliefs in women with breast cancer. Methods: In this randomized controlled clinical trial, a total of 24 depressed patients with breast cancer were randomly allocated to experimental and control groups. The experimental group received meta-cognitive therapy in 8 weekly sessions, but the control group received treatment as usual. Beck Depressive Inventory, cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire, and meta-cognitions questionnaire were completed before, after and one month after the intervention. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon and Chi-square tests. Results: The mean score of depression in the experimental group was reduced from 21.6 ± 4.83 in the pre-test to 13.83 ± 8.12 in one-month follow-up ( p = 0.16); however, there was no significant difference in the control group. The mean score of cognitive emotion regulation did not show a significant change in the two groups during the study and follow-up period. The mean score of meta-cognitive beliefs reached 68.75 ± 15.74 from 79.51 ± 10.72 in the experimental group during the follow-up period ( p = 0.006); however, there was no significant difference in the control group in the score of metacognitive beliefs. Conclusion: These findings support the efficacy of meta-cognitive therapy as a viable psychosocial intervention in depressed patients with breast cancer. Trial registration IRCT201606288473N5. Registered on: 05/09/2016 https://www.irct.ir/trial/8946 .
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics · doi:10.4103/0976-500x.72352 · Cited by 2,165 · see citing works
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-32 · Cited by 1,871 · see citing works
A short form of the metacognitions questionnaire: properties of the MCQ-30
Wells, A., & Cartwright-Hatton, S. (2004) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(03)00147-5 · Cited by 1,396 · see citing works
Ghassemzadeh, H., Mojtabai, R., Karamghadiri, N., & Ebrahimkhani, N. (2005) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.20070 · Cited by 813 · see citing works
The efficacy of metacognitive therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Normann, N., & Morina, N. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02211 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Metacognitive therapy in treatment-resistant depression: A platform trial
Wells, A., Fisher, P., Myers, S., Wheatley, J., Patel, T., & Brewin, C. R. (2012) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2012.02.004 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Nordahl, H. M., Borkovec, T. D., Hagen, R., Kennair, L. E. O., Hjemdal, O., Solem, S., Hansen, B., Haseth, S., & Wells, A. (2018) · BJPsych Open · doi:10.1192/bjo.2018.54 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Attention and Emotion (Classic Edition)
Wells, A., & Matthews, G. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9781315747187 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
The Association of Metacognitive Beliefs With Emotional Distress After Diagnosis of Cancer
Cook, S. A., Salmon, P., Dunn, G., Holcombe, C., Cornford, P., & Fisher, P. (2015) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/hea0000096 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer
Jassim, G. A., Doherty, S., Whitford, D. L., & Khashan, A. S. (2023) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008729.pub3 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zahedian, E., Bahreini, M., Ghasemi, N., & Mirzaei, K.
- Affiliations
- Bushehr University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Salman Farsi University of Kazerun (IR)
- Corresponding author
- Bahreini, Masoud
- Venue
- BMC Women's Health
- Published
- 2021-03-18
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 111-111
- ISSN
- 1472-6874 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7977266
- OpenAlex
- W3139058081
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Women s Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Bushehr University of Medical Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
- Keywords
- depression, breast cancer, women, cognitive emotion regulation, metacognitive beliefs, psychosocial interventions, cancer-related depression
- MeSH terms
- Breast Neoplasms, Depression, Female, Humans, Iran, Psychotherapy, Group, 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
