Cited by 81Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

A Systematic Review of Metacognitive Beliefs in Chronic Medical Conditions

Open access
Lenzo, Vittorio, Sardella, Alberto, Martino, Gabriella, Quattropani, Maria C.·2020·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Background Psychological functioning plays an important role in medical conditions and impacts patients’ quality of life. Previously, many studies highlighted the association of metacognition to both the development and the maintenance of emotional disorders. Recently, several researchers pointed out the relevant role of dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs in the context of chronic diseases. Hence, dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs could be directly related to anxiety and depression, regardless of the medical condition’s expression. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the available evidence regarding the association of metacognition with anxiety, depression, and perceived quality of life, in the context of medical conditions, according to Wells’ theory. Methods A systematic review based on electronic bibliographic databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Web of Knowledge) of scientific literature was carried out. Studies involving patients evaluated in clinical settings were included in the analysis. Results Our findings indicated that metacognition appears to be related to anxiety, depression, and quality of life in patients with medical chronic conditions. Therefore, dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs might be a relevant factor associated with the process of adapting to illness. Conclusions The additional evaluation of metacognitive factors in the context of several medical chronic conditions appears valuable. Since the rising interest in the study of metacognition, suggestions for future research have been eventually provided.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02875

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A systematic review by Lenzo et al in individuals with chronic medical conditions found that metacognitive beliefs were associated with anxiety, depression, and quality of life.

    “In addition, the results are in line with a systematic review conducted by Lenzo, Sardella, Martino, and Quattropani [78] in individuals with chronic medical conditions where metacognitive beliefs were associated with anxiety, depression, and quality of life.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lenzo, V., Sardella, A., Martino, G., & Quattropani, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Università degli studi di Cassino e del Lazio Meridionale (IT)
  • University of Messina (IT)
Corresponding author
Lenzo, Vittorio
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2020-01-10
Volume
10
Pages
2875-2875
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3000547807
Cited by
81
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 16
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
metacognitive beliefs, chronic disease, anxiety, depression, quality of life, adaptation to illness

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