Does metacognitive training for psychosis (MCT) improve neurocognitive performance? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metacognitive training for psychosis (MCT) offers benefits for addressing hallmark deficits/symptoms in schizophrenia spectrum disorders including reductions in cognitive biases and positive/negative symptoms as well as improvements in social cognition and functioning. However, differing results exist regarding the relationship between MCT and neurocognition. A comprehensive understanding of the nature of this relationship would significantly contribute to the existing literature and our understanding of the potential added value of MCT as a cognitive intervention for psychosis. METHODS: Across eleven electronic databases, 1312 sources were identified, and 14 studies examining MCT and neurocognition in psychosis were included in this review. Measures of estimated effect sizes were calculated with Hedge's g, moderator analyses used Cochrane's Q statistic and significance tests to measure group differences according to control conditions. RESULTS: = 328). When comparing MCT against control interventions, non-significant differences in estimated effect sizes were observed across all neurocognitive domains when evaluating pre-post changes (g ≤ 0.1, p > .05). Two additional studies corroborated these results in a narrative review. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that when compared against control conditions, MCT does not pose a statistically meaningful benefit to neurocognitive performance. General practice/learning effects are likely the main contributor that explains improvement in neurocognitive performance, and not a difference of intervention allocation when considering MCT against the included control comparators. These findings help establish the specificity of the effects of MCT.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".