ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020
Metacognition in Cardiac Patients With Anxiety and Depression: Psychometric Performance of the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 (MCQ-30).
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metacognitive therapy self-help for anxiety-depression: Single-blind randomized feasibility trial in cardiovascular disease.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2022Trial
- Psychometric Properties of the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30) in Older Norwegian Adolescents.Child psychiatry and human development · 2025Article
- Metacognitions in Young and Middle-Aged Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Psychometric Study of the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30.Psychology research and behavior management · 2025Article
- Protocol for the development and validation of a clinical measurement tool for fear of disease progression and recurrence in cardiac patients.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2024Article
- The Role of Metacognition in the Prediction of Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Chronically Ill Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Association between time perspective and metacognition among Lebanese adults: the mediating role of mindfulness.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Improving mental well-being in psychocardiology-a feasibility trial for a non-blended web application as a brief metacognitive-based intervention in cardiovascular disease patients.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Prevalence of post-traumatic stress and tests of metacognition as a PTSD risk marker in patients with coronary heart disease and elevated HADS scores: analysis of data from the PATHWAY RCT's in UK cardiac rehabilitation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Metacognitions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a psychometric study of the metacognitions questionnaire-30.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The evaluation of effective psychological therapies for anxiety and depression in cardiac patients is a priority, and progress in this area depends on the suitability and validity of measures. Metacognitive Therapy is a treatment with established efficacy in mental health settings. It postulates that anxiety and depression are caused by dysfunctional metacognitions, such as those assessed with the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 (MCQ-30), which impair effective regulation of repetitive negative thinking patterns. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the MCQ-30 in a cardiac sample. A sample of 440 cardiac patients with co-morbid anxiety and/or depression symptoms completed the MCQ-30 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test established factor structures of the MCQ-30: a correlated five-factor model and a bi-factor model. The five-factor model just failed to meet our minimum criteria for an acceptable fit on Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.892 vs. criterion of ≥ 0.9; but was acceptable on the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.061 vs. ≤ 0.08; whereas the bi-factor model just met those criteria (CFI = 0.913; RMSEA = 0.056). These findings suggest that the bi-factor solution may carry additional information beyond the five subscale scores alone. However, such a model needs to be evaluated further before widespread adoption could be recommended. Meantime we recommend cautious continued use of the five-factor model. Structural issues aside, all five subscales demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach alphas > 0.7) and similar relationships to HADS scores as in other patient populations. The MCQ-30 accounted for additional variance in anxiety and depression after controlling for age and gender.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.