Dataset Information

Can metacognitive interventions improve insight in schizophrenia spectrum disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) tend to lack insight, which is linked to poor outcomes. The effect size of previous treatments on insight changes in SSD has been small. Metacognitive interventions may improve insight in SSD, although this remains unproved. METHODS:We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the effects of metacognitive interventions designed for SSD, namely Metacognitive Training (MCT) and Metacognitive Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT), on changes in cognitive and clinical insight at post-treatment and at follow-up. RESULTS:Twelve RCTs, including 10 MCT RCTs (n = 717 participants) and two MERIT trials (n = 90), were selected, totalling N = 807 participants. Regarding cognitive insight six RCTs (n = 443) highlighted a medium effect of MCT on self-reflectiveness at post-treatment, d = 0.46, p < 0.01, and at follow-up, d = 0.30, p < 0.01. There was a small effect of MCT on self-certainty at post-treatment, d = -0.23, p = 0.03, but not at follow-up. MCT was superior to controls on an overall Composite Index of cognitive insight at post-treatment, d = 1.11, p < 0.01, and at follow-up, d = 0.86, p = 0.03, although we found evidence of heterogeneity. Of five MCT trials on clinical insight (n = 244 participants), which could not be meta-analysed, four of them favoured MCT compared v. control. The two MERIT trials reported conflicting results. CONCLUSIONS:Metacognitive interventions, particularly Metacognitive Training, appear to improve insight in patients with SSD, especially cognitive insight shortly after treatment. Further long-term RCTs are needed to establish whether these metacognitive interventions-related insight changes are sustained over a longer time period and result in better outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Lopez-Morinigo JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7610184 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can metacognitive interventions improve insight in schizophrenia spectrum disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lopez-Morinigo Javier-David JD Ajnakina Olesya O Martínez Adela Sánchez-Escribano AS Escobedo-Aedo Paula-Jhoana PJ Ruiz-Ruano Verónica González VG Sánchez-Alonso Sergio S Mata-Iturralde Laura L Muñoz-Lorenzo Laura L Ochoa Susana S Baca-García Enrique E David Anthony S AS

Psychological medicine 20201014 14

<h4>Background</h4>Patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) tend to lack insight, which is linked to poor outcomes. The effect size of previous treatments on insight changes in SSD has been small. Metacognitive interventions may improve insight in SSD, although this remains unproved.<h4>Methods</h4>We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the effects of metacognitive interventions designed for SSD, namely Metacognitive Tra ...[more]

PMID: 33050956

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract Background Insight in schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) has been linked with positive outcomes. However, the effect size of previous treatments on insight has been relatively small to date. The metacognitive basis of insight in SSD has led to speculation that metacognitive training (MCT) may improve insight and clinical outcomes in SSD. Methods Design: Single-center, assessor-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Sample: Participants are recruited from the outpatient clinic of Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz (Madrid, Spain) over June-December 2019. Inclusion criteria: i) age: 18–64 years, both inclusive, at the study inception; ii) diagnosis: SSD based on the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (Sheehan et al., 1998) and iii) IQ>70 according to the Wechsler Adults Intelligence Scale-IV (Wechsler, 1981). Those with organic and drugs-induced psychosis, poor level of Spanish and/or lack of cooperativeness are excluded. Intervention: Participants are randomised to receive eight weekly group sessions of MCT or group psychoeducation (PSE) and they will be assessed at: T0) at baseline; T1) after treatment and T2) at 1-year follow-up, although follow-up data are not available yet. Co-primary outcome measures: clinical and cognitive insight dimensions, which will be measured by the Schedule for Assessment of Insight (Expanded version) (SAI-E) (Kemp & David, 1997), and the Beck Cognitive Insight Scale (BCIS) (Beck et al., 2004), respectively. Secondary outcome measures: i)Symptom severity-Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (Kay et al., 1987); ii)Functioning-General Assessment of Functioning (Endicott et al., 1976), World Health Organization Disability Scale (WHO, 2012) and Satisfaction Life Domains Scale (Carlson et al., 2009), and only at follow-up (T2) iii)Suicidal Behaviour and iv) Hospitalizations. Power calculations: To reach a power of β=80% and detect a between-group difference of two points on the SAI-E total scores, which is considered to be clinically meaningful -effect size of 0.33-, the estimated sample size at the end of the study is n=126. Statistics: Student’s T-test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used as appropriate to compare between-group differences before- and after-treatment, i.e., the changes from baseline to post-treatment scores. The protocol of the study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04104347). Results n=49 subjects have been assessed at baseline so far (26 males, age: 47.0±10.2 years, diagnosis of schizophrenia -F20-ICD10-, n=36, 73.5%). Fifteen individuals (MCT: n=8; controls: n=7) have completed the treatment and the post-treatment assessment (T1). ‘After-treatment-T1 - baseline-T0’ scores difference means/medians between-group differences (MCT vs. PSE) were: SAI-E total insight 1.00 vs. -2.00, p=0.050; SAI-E illness awareness 0.62±2.20 vs. -0.43±1.62, p=0.316; SAI-E symptom relabelling 0.37±3.38 vs. -1.86±2.34, p=0.167; SAI-E treatment compliance 0.00 vs. 0.00, p>0.05,ns; BCIS self-reflectiveness 0.50±3.78 vs. -1.43±2.22, p=0.259, BCIS self-certainty 1.62±2.97 vs. 0.00±2.44, p=0.298 and BCIS Composite Index -1.13±5.62 vs. -2.17±3.49, p=0.698. Discussion This is the first RCT testing the effect of group MCT on insight (as primary outcome) in a sample of unselected patients with SSD in comparison with psychoeducation. Two main findings emerged from the results. First, MCT appears to improve clinical and cognitive insight in SSD. Second, MCT was shown to be superior to PSE in changing insight. Whether the above MCT-related insight improvement is maintained at longer-term and whether this has an impact on clinical and social outcomes are yet to be established, which will be properly looked at in this trial.

Project description:ImportanceSchizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) both feature social cognitive deficits; however, these disorders historically have been examined separately using a range of tests and subdomain focus and at different time points in the life span. Moving beyond diagnostic categories and characterizing social cognitive deficits can enhance understanding of shared pathways across these disorders.ObjectiveTo investigate how deficits in social cognitive domains diverge or overlap between SSDs and ASD based on the extant literature.Data sourcesLiterature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception until July 26, 2020.Study selectionOriginal research articles were selected that reported performance-based measures of social cognition in both SSDs and ASD samples. Selected articles also had to be published in English and use International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, DSM-IV, or more recent diagnostic criteria.Data extraction and synthesisThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines, including data extraction and quality assessment using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresEffect sizes were calculated as Hedges g (SSDs vs ASD). The primary outcomes were performance on emotion processing tasks, theory of mind (ToM) tasks, and the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) in SSDs compared with ASD. Meta-regressions were performed for age difference, publication year, quality assessment scores, and antipsychotic medication use.ResultsOf the 4175 screened articles, 36 studies directly comparing social cognitive performance in individuals with SSDs vs ASD were included in the qualitative analysis (n = 1212 for SSDs groups and n = 1109 for ASD groups), and 33 studies were included in the quantitative analyses (n = 1113 for SSDs groups and n = 1015 for ASD groups). Most study participants were male (number of studies [k] = 36, 72% [878 of 1212] in SSDs groups and 82% [907 of 1109] in ASD groups), and age (k = 35) was older in SSDs groups (mean [SD], 28.4 [9.5] years) than in ASD groups (mean [SD], 23.3 [7.6] years). Included studies highlighted the prevalence of small, male-predominant samples and a paucity of cross-disorder clinical measures. The meta-analyses revealed no statistically significant differences between SSDs and ASD on emotion processing measures (k = 15; g = 0.12 [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.30]; P = .21; I2 = 51.0%; 1 outlier excluded), ToM measures (k = 17; g = -0.01 [95% CI, -0.21 to 0.19]; P = .92; I2 = 56.5%; 1 outlier excluded), or the RMET (k = 13; g = 0.25 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.53]; P = .10; I2 = 75.3%). However, SSDs vs ASD performance differences between studies were statistically significantly heterogeneous, which was only minimally explained by potential moderators.Conclusions and relevanceIn this analysis, similar levels of social cognitive impairment were present, on average, in individuals with SSDs and ASD. Cross-disorder studies of social cognition, including larger samples, consensus batteries, and consistent reporting of measures, as well as data across multiple levels of analysis, are needed to help identify subgroups within and across disorders that may be more homogeneous in etiology and treatment response.

Project description:BackgroundSchizophrenia requires a community-based intervention approach combined with standard treatment to prevent relapses. A literature review is required to understand the effectiveness of community-based interventions and to enhance quality in countries where they have not been fully established. This is a protocol for a systematic review of the effectiveness of community-based interventions for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.MethodsWe will search (from inception to January 2021) PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Research Information Sharing Service/Korean databases. Randomized controlled trials on community-based interventions for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders will be eligible. The comparison groups will include patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who are only receiving the usual care and those who also receive community-based interventions. The schizophrenia spectrum disorders referred to in this study are defined according to the DSM-5: delusional disorders, schizophrenic disorders, and schizoaffective disorder will be included. Relapse/re-hospitalization rates (primary outcome) and quality of life (secondary outcome) will be identified for each group. Two reviewers will independently screen study titles, abstract data, and full-text articles and perform the data extraction process. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The study risk of bias will be appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Results will be descriptively synthesized and will be structured according to patients' characteristics, intervention type and exposure, and outcome type. If feasible and appropriate, outcome data will be used to perform random effects meta-analyses. Discrete variables will be calculated via odds ratio, and continuous variables will be calculated via standardized mean difference using RevMan 5.3 software.DiscussionWe will provide a summary of the available evidence on the effectiveness of community-based interventions and specific guidelines to improve their outcomes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO ( CRD42019145660 ).

Project description:BackgroundMatrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9), an extracellular network protease implicated in glutamatergic signaling, may be part of the pathophysiology of schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD).MethodsWe performed a systematic review in PubMed/Embase until July 15, 2020, conducting a random-effects meta-analysis of studies comparing MMP-9 blood levels in SSD vs healthy controls (HCs) and psychiatric controls (PCs), calculating between-group differences in standardized mean differences (SMDs) ± 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression analyses included sex, age, illness duration, antipsychotic dose, and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total/subscales. Subgroup analyses included first-episode patients (FEP) vs non-FEP, each vs HCs and vs PCs, and blood sample type. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.ResultsFour, five, and two trials were rated as high, fair, and low quality. In 11 studies (n = 1443), 643 patients (age = 36.7 ± 14.1 years, females = 42.9%) were compared with HCs (n = 631), with 4 studies including also 169 PCs. MMP-9 levels were higher in SSD vs HCs (SMD = 0.52, 95%CI = 0.20-0.85, P = .002), but not in PCs vs HCs (n = 132, after removing one implausible outlier [SMD = 0.33, 95%CI = -0.16 to 0.85, P = .082]). MMP-9 differences between SSD and HCs were associated with higher PANSS total (coefficient = 0.02, 95%CI = 0.01-0.02, P < .001), PANSS positive (coefficient = 0.08, 95%CI = 0.02-0.13, P = .006), and PANSS general scores (coefficient = 0.02, 95%CI = 0.01-0.03, P < .001). MMP-9 level differences vs HCs did not vary significantly between FEP (n = 103, SMD = 0.44, 95%CI = 0.15-0.72, P = .71) and non-FEP patients (n = 466, SMD = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.38-0.80; P = .34) (FEP vs non-FEP: P = .39). In four high-quality studies, MMP-9 levels remained significantly higher in SSD vs HCs (SMD = 0.82, 95%CI = 0.03-1.61).ConclusionsFindings suggest MMP-9 upregulation in SSD, requiring further validation and understanding of related pathways.

Project description:There has been increasing interest in parent-mediated interventions (PMIs) for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effect of PMIs compared to no PMI for children with ASD aged 2-17 years. The primary outcome was adaptive functioning rated by a parent or clinician. The secondary outcomes were long-term adaptive functioning rated by the parents, adverse events, core symptoms of ASD, disruptive behavior, parental well-being, quality of life of the child rated by the parents and anxiety. The MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched in March 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to rate the individual studies, and the certainty in the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. We identified 30 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 1,934 participants. A clinically relevant effect of PMIs on parent-rated adaptive functioning was found with a low certainty of evidence [Standard mean difference (SMD): 0.28 (95% CI: -0.01, 0.57)] on Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS), whereas no clinically relevant effect was seen for clinician-rated functional level, with a very low certainty of evidence [SMD on Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-severity scale: SMD -0.45 [95% CI: -0.87, -0.03)]. PMIs may slightly improve clinician-rated autism core symptoms [SMD: -0.35 (95% CI: -0.71, 0.02)]. Additionally, no effect of PMIs on parent-rated core symptoms of ASD, parental well-being or adverse effects was identified, all with a low certainty of evidence. There was a moderate certainty of evidence for a clinically relevant effect on disruptive behavior [SMD: 0.55 (95% Cl: 0.36, 0.74)]. The certainty in the evidence was downgraded due to serious risk of bias, lack of blinding, and serious risk of imprecision due to few participants included in meta-analyses. The present findings suggest that clinicians may consider introducing PMIs to children with ASD, but more high-quality RCTs are needed because the effects are not well-established, and the results are likely to change with future studies. The protocol for the systematic review is registered at the Danish Health Authority website (www.sst.dk).

Dataset Information

Can metacognitive interventions improve insight in schizophrenia spectrum disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Can metacognitive interventions improve insight in schizophrenia spectrum disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets