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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baumgartner, Josef, Litvan, Zsuzsa, Koch, Marlene, Hinterbuchinger, Barbara, Friedrich, Fabian, Baumann, Lukas, Mossaheb, Nilufar
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