Metacognitive training for patients with schizophrenia: Preliminary evidence for a targeted, single-module programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Metacognitive training is an eight-module, group-based treatment programme for people with schizophrenia that targets the cognitive biases (i.e. problematic thinking styles) thought to contribute to the genesis and maintenance of delusions. The present article is an investigation into the efficacy of a shorter, more targeted, single-module metacognitive training programme, administered individually, which focuses specifically on improving cognitive biases that are thought to be driven by a 'hypersalience of evidence-hypothesis matches' mechanism (e.g. jumping to conclusions, belief inflexibility, reasoning heuristics, illusions of control). It was hypothesised that a more targeted metacognitive training module could still improve performance on these bias tasks and reduce delusional ideation, while improving insight and quality of life. METHOD: A sample of 28 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and mild delusions either participated in the hour-long, single-session, targeted metacognitive training programme (n = 14), or continued treatment as usual (n = 14). All patients were assessed using clinical measures gauging overall positive symptomology, delusional ideation, quality of life and insight, and completed two cognitive bias tasks designed to elucidate the representativeness and illusion of control biases. RESULTS: After a 2-week, post-treatment interval, targeted metacognitive training patients exhibited significant decreases in delusional severity and conviction, significantly improved clinical insight, and significant improvements on the cognitive bias tasks, relative to the treatment-as-usual controls. Performance improvements on the cognitive bias tasks significantly correlated with the observed reductions in overall positive symptomology. Patients also evaluated the training positively. CONCLUSIONS: Although interpretations of these results are limited due to the lack of an optimally designed, randomised controlled trial and a small sample size, the results are promising and warrant further investigation into targeted versions of the metacognitive training programme.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".