ReviewPsychological medicine2026
A review and integration of models on delusion maintenance.
Review in Psychological medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contemporary definitions of delusions highlight their resistance to conflicting evidence as the core feature. However, most etiological models of delusions have focused on delusion formation rather than maintenance and we lack a coherent understanding of why delusions persist. We conducted a systematic literature search of models on delusion maintenance, extracted their core postulates, point to explanatory gaps, and derive an integrated framework. We identified 74 published accounts that include postulated mechanisms of delusion maintenance. We classified the models into six core perspectives that informed them: Bayesian inference (17 models), associative learning theory (6 models), neurobiological (11 models), cognitive-behavioral (23 models), motivational (7 models), and social (6 models). Most models highlight a mechanistic role of avoidance and operant learning, converging on the idea that a delusional explanation is reinforced. Another repeatedly suggested mechanism is that the delusional belief, once formed, influences the way further information is processed. In addition, most models propose a key role of individual deficits and biases. The proposed factors can be combined in temporal progression, including early risk factors and resulting vulnerability, the common proposed mechanism of formation (i.e. search for explanation of ambiguous experiences), and the short- and long-term consequences of the delusional explanation along with feedback loops. By considering numerous factors and their interactions, the integrative model provides a considerably more compelling account of why delusions persist than any single perspective alone. It can help to identify novel directions for research and intervention, such as addressing short-term benefits of delusion maintenance.
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.