Cargando…
Metacognitive beliefs in individuals at risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences
BACKGROUND: Sex differences were found in several domains in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis, but no previous work has systematically reviewed and analysed possible sex differences in metacognition in this population. However, alterations in metacognitive beliefs have been shown in the...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Vienna
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7467958/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32338344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40211-020-00348-8 |
_version_ | 1783578120750628864 |
---|---|
author | Baumgartner, Josef Litvan, Zsuzsa Koch, Marlene Hinterbuchinger, Barbara Friedrich, Fabian Baumann, Lukas Mossaheb, Nilufar |
author_facet | Baumgartner, Josef Litvan, Zsuzsa Koch, Marlene Hinterbuchinger, Barbara Friedrich, Fabian Baumann, Lukas Mossaheb, Nilufar |
author_sort | Baumgartner, Josef |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Sex differences were found in several domains in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis, but no previous work has systematically reviewed and analysed possible sex differences in metacognition in this population. However, alterations in metacognitive beliefs have been shown in the at-risk mental state for psychosis population. Our aim was to qualitatively review and quantitatively analyse the existing literature for data on sex differences in metacognitive beliefs—mainly depicted by the Metacognitions Questionnaire (MCQ) and its short form (MCQ-30)—in individuals with at-risk mental states. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature on metacognition in help-seeking adolescents and young adults at ultra-high risk for psychosis. We included peer-reviewed articles that included a high-risk for psychosis group assessed with operationalised criteria and instruments. For the quantitative meta-analysis, only studies comparing MCQ data in high-risk individuals were included. A fixed-effect meta-model was used and forest plots drawn for each subscale and overall score. The studies were weighted according to the inverse variance method in order to calculate pooled confidence intervals and p values. RESULTS: No article on metacognitive beliefs in individuals at increased risk for psychosis explicitly reported possible sex differences. Our meta-analysis of 234 (57% male) individuals’ scores in the MCQ yielded no significant sex difference. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, no sex differences in metacognition can be described in the at-risk population; however, data are insufficient and heterogeneous with regard to thoroughly answering the question whether sex differences in clinical high-risk populations are mirrored in the metacognitive domain. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7467958 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Vienna |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74679582020-09-15 Metacognitive beliefs in individuals at risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences Baumgartner, Josef Litvan, Zsuzsa Koch, Marlene Hinterbuchinger, Barbara Friedrich, Fabian Baumann, Lukas Mossaheb, Nilufar Neuropsychiatr Original Article BACKGROUND: Sex differences were found in several domains in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis, but no previous work has systematically reviewed and analysed possible sex differences in metacognition in this population. However, alterations in metacognitive beliefs have been shown in the at-risk mental state for psychosis population. Our aim was to qualitatively review and quantitatively analyse the existing literature for data on sex differences in metacognitive beliefs—mainly depicted by the Metacognitions Questionnaire (MCQ) and its short form (MCQ-30)—in individuals with at-risk mental states. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature on metacognition in help-seeking adolescents and young adults at ultra-high risk for psychosis. We included peer-reviewed articles that included a high-risk for psychosis group assessed with operationalised criteria and instruments. For the quantitative meta-analysis, only studies comparing MCQ data in high-risk individuals were included. A fixed-effect meta-model was used and forest plots drawn for each subscale and overall score. The studies were weighted according to the inverse variance method in order to calculate pooled confidence intervals and p values. RESULTS: No article on metacognitive beliefs in individuals at increased risk for psychosis explicitly reported possible sex differences. Our meta-analysis of 234 (57% male) individuals’ scores in the MCQ yielded no significant sex difference. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, no sex differences in metacognition can be described in the at-risk population; however, data are insufficient and heterogeneous with regard to thoroughly answering the question whether sex differences in clinical high-risk populations are mirrored in the metacognitive domain. Springer Vienna 2020-04-27 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7467958/ /pubmed/32338344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40211-020-00348-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Baumgartner, Josef Litvan, Zsuzsa Koch, Marlene Hinterbuchinger, Barbara Friedrich, Fabian Baumann, Lukas Mossaheb, Nilufar Metacognitive beliefs in individuals at risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences |
title | Metacognitive beliefs in individuals at risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences |
title_full | Metacognitive beliefs in individuals at risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences |
title_fullStr | Metacognitive beliefs in individuals at risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences |
title_full_unstemmed | Metacognitive beliefs in individuals at risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences |
title_short | Metacognitive beliefs in individuals at risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences |
title_sort | metacognitive beliefs in individuals at risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7467958/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32338344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40211-020-00348-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT baumgartnerjosef metacognitivebeliefsinindividualsatriskforpsychosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsexdifferences AT litvanzsuzsa metacognitivebeliefsinindividualsatriskforpsychosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsexdifferences AT kochmarlene metacognitivebeliefsinindividualsatriskforpsychosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsexdifferences AT hinterbuchingerbarbara metacognitivebeliefsinindividualsatriskforpsychosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsexdifferences AT friedrichfabian metacognitivebeliefsinindividualsatriskforpsychosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsexdifferences AT baumannlukas metacognitivebeliefsinindividualsatriskforpsychosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsexdifferences AT mossahebnilufar metacognitivebeliefsinindividualsatriskforpsychosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsexdifferences |