Evidence Hub

Efficacy of psychological interventions targeting cognitive biases in schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

G. Sauvé, Katie M. Lavigne, Gabrielle Pochiet, M. Brodeur, M. Lepage

Clinical Psychology Review, 2020

2,738 participants · 69 citations

Abstract

Cognitive biases, which are tendencies to systematically process, select and remember certain information (e.g., jumping to conclusions), are exacerbated in schizophrenia and associated with delusions. Here we review and quantitatively assess psychological interventions targeting cognitive biases (e.g., metacognitive training, reasoning training, Maudsley review training programme) to evaluate their efficacy in improving cognitive biases, positive symptoms, and insight. Overall, thirty-two studies, including 15 distinct interventions and 2738 participants, were identified through a comprehensive keyword database search. Meta-analytic effect sizes were calculated and heterogeneity, publication bias, and subgroup analyses (study bias, active/passive intervention) were conducted. We observed significant small to moderate beneficial effects of cognitive interventions on cognitive biases (Hedges' g = 0.27; 95% CI = [0.13-0.41]; z = 3.77; p < .001), positive symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.30; 95% CI = [0.13-0.48]; z = 3.44, p < .005), and insight (Hedges' g = 0.35; 95% CI = [0.15-0.56]; z = 3.37,p < .005). Interestingly, studies with high risk of bias or passive control condition did not differ significantly from those with low risk or active control condition, respectively. Thus, cognitive biases are malleable via psychological interventions, which also exert, either directly or indirectly through reduced cognitive biases, beneficial effects on positive symptoms and insight.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,738 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free