↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Metacognitive approaches to the treatment of psychosis: a comparison of four approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Psychology Research and Behavior Management, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
Title
Metacognitive approaches to the treatment of psychosis: a comparison of four approaches
Published in
Psychology Research and Behavior Management, September 2018
DOI 10.2147/prbm.s146446
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul H Lysaker, Emily Gagen, Steffen Moritz, Robert D Schweitzer

Abstract

In light of increasing interest in metacognition and its role in recovery from psychosis, a range of new treatments focused on addressing metacognitive deficits have emerged. These include Metacognitive Therapy, Metacognitive Training, metacognitive insight and reflection therapy, and metacognitive interpersonal therapy for psychosis. While each of these treatments uses the term metacognitive, each differs in terms of their epistemological underpinnings, their structure, format, presumed mechanisms of action, and primary outcomes. To clarify how these treatments converge and diverge, we first offer a brief history of metacognition as well as its potential role in an individual's response to and recovery from complicated mental health conditions including psychosis. We then review the background, practices, and supporting evidence for each treatment. Finally, we will offer a framework for thinking about how each of these approaches may ultimately complement rather than contradict one another and highlight areas for development. We suggest first that each is concerned with something beyond what people with psychosis think about themselves and their lives. Each of these four approaches is interested in how patients with severe mental illness think about themselves. Each looks at immediate reactions and ideas that frame the meaning of thoughts. Second, each of these approaches is more concerned with why people make dysfunctional decisions and take maladaptive actions rather than what comprised those decisions and actions. Third, despite their differences, each of these treatments is true to the larger construct of metacognition and is focused on person's relationships to their mental experiences, promoting various forms of self-understanding which allow for better self-management. Each can be distinguished from other cognitive and skills-based approaches to the treatment of psychosis in their emphasis on sense-making rather than learning a new specific thing to say, think, or do in a given situation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 42 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 49 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 49 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2019.
All research outputs
#13,626,767
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from Psychology Research and Behavior Management
#251
of 568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,446
of 335,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychology Research and Behavior Management
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.