Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32911486›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Metacognitive beliefs and their relationship with anxiety and depression in physical illnesses: A systematic review.

Lora Capobianco, Cintia Faija, Zara Husain, Adrian Wells

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Exploring Psychological Factors and Metacognitive Beliefs in Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Single-Group Pre-Post Study.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lora CapobiancoResearch and Innovation, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6877-8650
Cintia FaijaDivision of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Zara HusainResearch and Innovation, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Adrian WellsResearch and Innovation, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7713-1592
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1211-20011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anxiety and depression are common among patients with chronic physical illnesses and have a significant impact on morbidity, quality of life, and health service utilisation. Psychological treatment of anxiety and depression has small to moderate efficacy in this group and is not commonly based on a model of causal mechanisms. A novel approach to understanding and improving mental health outcomes in physical illnesses is needed. One approach may be to explore the role of metacognitive beliefs which are reliably associated with anxiety and depression in individuals with mental health difficulties. The current systematic review aimed to evaluate the contribution of metacognitive beliefs to anxiety and depression across physical illnesses. Systematic searches were conducted on Web of Science, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL of studies published between 1997 and January 2019. 13 eligible studies were identified that in sum comprised 2851 participants. Metacognitive beliefs were found to have reliable, moderate, positive and significant associations with anxiety and depression symptoms across a range of physical illnesses. There appeared to be commonality and some specificity in the relationships. Negative metacognitive beliefs concerned with uncontrollability and danger of worry were associated with both anxiety and depression across all physical illnesses assessed, whilst more specific associations emerged for individual medical conditions where positive beliefs about worry, cognitive confidence and cognitive self-consciousness were unique correlates. Negative metacognitive beliefs of uncontrollability and danger significantly and positively predicted symptoms of anxiety and depression after controlling for factors including age, gender, disease factors and cognition (illness perceptions and intolerance of uncertainty). The results suggest that the metacognitive model of psychological disorder is applicable to psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression across a range of chronic medical conditions, implying that metacognitive therapy might be helpful in improving outcomes in multiple morbidities that involve poor mental and medical health.

Indexed as

AdultAnxietyCognitionDepressionEmotionsFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthMetacognitionMiddle AgedModels, PsychologicalPhysical FitnessQuality of LifeSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32911486
PMCPMC7500039
OpenAlexW3084692426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.