Psychosocial Approaches in the Treatment of Psychosis: Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Psychosis (CBTp) and Metacognitive Training (MCT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although antipsychotic medication has been the most widely used and efficacious treatment in ameliorating the symptoms of psychosis, there has been a growing realization that pharmacological treatment has limitations. A significant minority of individuals continue to show "treatment-resistant" symptoms and significant relapse risk, while others show symptom reduction without the corresponding improvement in social and role functioning. Psychotherapy, in combination with medication, can help with symptom reduction, as well as improve functioning and quality of life. In this paper, we focus on two modalities of psychotherapy which have been shown to improve symptomatology and functioning in individuals with psychosis: Cognitive Behavior Therapy for psychosis (CBTp) and Metacognitive Training (MCT). Both treatment approaches focus on increasing the individuals' understanding of the psychological mechanisms associated with delusions and hallucinations, and helping them develop strategies to improve reality testing and belief evaluation. We aim to provide an overview of both treatments, examining not only the theoretical mechanisms and efficacy of each approach, but also the common therapeutic components they share.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".