Does childhood trauma predict poorer metacognitive abilities in people with first-episode psychosis?

Research suggests that people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) report more childhood traumas and have lower metacognitive abilities than non-clinical controls. Childhood trauma negatively affects metacognitive development in population studies, while the association remains largely unexplored in FEP populations. Metacognition refers to the identification of thoughts and feelings and the formation of complex ideas about oneself and others. This study hypothesized that childhood trauma would be associated with lower metacognitive abilities in people with FEP. In a representative sample of 92 persons with non-affective FEP, we assessed childhood trauma, metacognitive abilities and symptoms of psychosis. We used the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and the Metacognitive Assessment Scale––Abbreviated which includes Self-reflectivity, Awareness of the Mind of the Other, Decentration and Mastery. Hierarchical regression analyses were performed with metacognitive domains as outcome variables and childhood traumas as independent variables, while controlling for age, gender, first-degree psychiatric illness and negative symptoms. We found few significant associations between the different types of childhood trauma and metacognitive domains, and they suggested childhood trauma are associated with better metacognitive abilities. Study limitations included the cross-sectional design and use of self-report measures. Future studies could preferably be prospective and include different measures of psychopathology and neuropsychology

Investigating the relationship between specific negative symptoms and metacognitive functioning in psychosis: a systematic review

Background: Disrupted metacognition is implicated in development and maintenance of negative symptoms, but more fine-grained analyses would inform precise treatment targeting for individual negative symptoms. Aims: This systematic review identifies and examines datasets that test whether specific metacognitive capacities distinctly influence negative symptoms. Materials and Methods: PsycINFO, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Library databases plus hand searching of relevant articles, journals and grey literature identified quantitative research investigating negative symptoms and metacognition in adults aged 16+ with psychosis. Authors of included articles were contacted to identify unique datasets and missing information. Data were extracted for a risk of bias assessment using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Results: 85 published reports met criteria and are estimated to reflect 32 distinct datasets and 1623 unique participants. The data indicated uncertainty about the relationship between summed scores of negative symptoms and domains of metacognition, with significant findings indicating correlation coefficients from 0.88 to −0.23. Only eight studies investigated the relationship between metacognition and individual negative symptoms, with mixed findings. Studies were mostly moderate-to-low risk of bias. Discussion: The relationship between negative symptoms and metacognition is rarely the focus of studies reviewed here, and negative symptom scores are often summed. This approach may obscure relationships between metacognitive domains and individual negative symptoms which may be important for understanding how negative symptoms are developed and maintained. Conclusion: Methodological challenges around overlapping participants, variation in aggregation of negative symptom items and types of analyses used, make a strong case for use of Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis to further elucidate these relationships