Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34215225›Full record

ReviewBMC psychiatry2021

Metacognition, social cognition, and mentalizing in psychosis: are these distinct constructs when it comes to subjective experience or are we just splitting hairs?

P H Lysaker, S Cheli, G Dimaggio, B Buck, K A Bonfils, K Huling, C Wiesepape, J T Lysaker

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
106.1field-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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

P H LysakerRichard L Roudebush VA Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, 1481 W. 10th St., Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. plysaker@iupui.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6617-9387
S CheliUniversity of Florence, School of Human Health Sciences, Piazza di San Marco, 4, 50121, Florence, FI, Italy.
G DimaggioTerzocentro di Psicoterapia Cognitiva, Associazione di Psicologia Cognitiva, Via Ravenna, 9, 00161, Rome, RM, Italy.
B BuckDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Behavioral Research in Technology and Engineering (BRiTE) Center, 1851 NE Grant Ln., Seattle, WA, 98185, USA.
K A BonfilsUniversity of Southern Mississippi, School of Psychology, 118 College Dr., Hattiesbury, MS, 39406, USA.
K HulingUniversity of Indianapolis, School of Psychological Sciences, 1400 E. Hanna Ave., Indianapolis, IN, 46277, USA.
C WiesepapeIndiana State University, Department of Psychology, 200 N. 7th St., Terre Haute, IN, 47809, USA.
J T LysakerDepartment of Philosophy, Emory University, 201 Dowman Dr., Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Centro di Terapia Metacognitiva Interpersonale · ITEmory University · USIndiana State University · USRichard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center · USUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Indianapolis · USUniversity of Southern Mississippi · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research using the integrated model of metacognition has suggested that the construct of metacognition could quantify the spectrum of activities that, if impaired, might cause many of the subjective disturbances found in psychosis. Research on social cognition and mentalizing in psychosis, however, has also pointed to underlying deficits in how persons make sense of their experience of themselves and others. To explore the question of whether metacognitive research in psychosis offers unique insight in the midst of these other two emerging fields, we have offered a review of the constructs and research from each field. Following that summary, we discuss ways in which research on metacognition may be distinguished from research on social cognition and mentalizing in three broad categories: (1) experimental procedures, (2) theoretical advances, and (3) clinical applications or indicated interventions. In terms of its research methods, we will describe how metacognition makes a unique contribution to understanding disturbances in how persons make sense of and interpret their own experiences within the flow of life. We will next discuss how metacognitive research in psychosis uniquely describes an architecture which when compromised - as often occurs in psychosis - results in the loss of persons' sense of purpose, possibilities, place in the world and cohesiveness of self. Turning to clinical issues, we explore how metacognitive research offers an operational model of the architecture which if repaired or restored should promote the recovery of a coherent sense of self and others in psychosis. Finally, we discuss the concrete implications of this for recovery-oriented treatment for psychosis as well as the need for further research on the commonalities of these approaches.

Indexed as

MentalizationMetacognitionPsychotic DisordersSense of CoherenceHumansSocial CognitionMentalizingMetacognitionPsychosisPsychotherapyRecoveryRehabilitationSchizophreniaSelfSocial cognition

Identifiers

PMID34215225
PMCPMC8254212
OpenAlexW3173280680

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.