Metacognitive training (MCT) for schizophrenia spectrum is widely implemented. It is timely to systematically review the literature and to conduct a meta-analysis.

Eligible studies were selected from several sources (databases and expert suggestions). Criteria included comparative studies with a MCT condition measuring positive symptoms and/or delusions and/or data-gathering bias. Three meta-analyses were conducted on data gathering (three studies; 219 participants), delusions (seven studies; 500 participants) and positive symptoms (nine studies; 436 participants). Hedges’ g is reported as the effect size of interest. Statistical power was sufficient to detect small to moderate effects.

All analyses yielded small non-significant effect sizes (0.26 for positive symptoms; 0.22 for delusions; 0.31 for data-gathering bias). Corrections for publication bias further reduced the effect sizes to 0.21 for positive symptoms and to 0.03 for delusions. In blinded studies, the corrected effect sizes were 0.22 for positive symptoms and 0.03 for delusions. In studies using proper intention-to-treat statistics the effect sizes were 0.10 for positive symptoms and −0.02 for delusions. The moderate to high heterogeneity in most analyses suggests that processes other than MCT alone have an impact on the results.

The studies so far do not support a positive effect for MCT on positive symptoms, delusions and data gathering. The methodology of most studies was poor and sensitivity analyses to control for methodological flaws reduced the effect sizes considerably. More rigorous research would be helpful in order to create enough statistical power to detect small effect sizes and to reduce heterogeneity. Limitations and strengths are discussed.

There is an increasing interest in cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) interventions targeting negative symptoms in schizophrenia. To date, CBT trials primarily focused on positive symptoms and investigated change in negative symptoms only as a secondary outcome. To enhance insight into factors contributing to improvement of negative symptoms, and to identify subgroups of patients that may benefit most from CBT directed at ameliorating negative symptoms, we reviewed all available evidence on these outcomes.

A systematic search of the literature was conducted in PsychInfo, PubMed and the Cochrane register to identify randomized controlled trials reporting on the impact of CBT interventions on negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed on end-of-treatment, short-term and long-term changes in negative symptoms.

A total of 35 publications covering 30 trials in 2312 patients, published between 1993 and 2013, were included. Our results showed studies’ pooled effect on symptom alleviation to be small [Hedges’ g = 0.093, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.028 to 0.214, p = 0.130] and heterogeneous (Q = 73.067, degrees of freedom = 29, p < 0.001, τ 2 = 0.081, I 2 = 60.31) in studies with negative symptoms as a secondary outcome. Similar results were found for studies focused on negative symptom reduction (Hedges’ g = 0.157, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.409, p = 0.225). Meta-regression revealed that stronger treatment effects were associated with earlier year of publication, lower study quality and with CBT provided individually (as compared with group-based).

The co-occurring beneficial effect of conventional CBT on negative symptoms found in older studies was not supported by more recent studies. It is now necessary to further disentangle effective treatment ingredients of older studies in order to guide the development of future CBT interventions aimed at negative symptom reduction.

Interventions to improve adherence to treatment in people with psychotic disorders have produced inconclusive results. We developed a new treatment, treatment adherence therapy (TAT), whose intervention modules are tailored to the reasons for an individual's non-adherence.

To examine the effectiveness of TAT with regard to service engagement and medication adherence in out-patients with psychotic disorders who engage poorly.

Randomised controlled study of TAT v. treatment as usual (TAU) in 109 out-patients. Most outcome measurements were performed by masked assessors. We used intention-to-treat multivariate analyses (Dutch Trial Registry: NTR1159).

Treatment adherence therapy v. TAU significantly benefited service engagement (Cohen's d = 0.48) and medication adherence (Cohen's d = 0.43). Results remained significant at 6-month follow-up for medication adherence. Near-significant effects were also found regarding involuntary readmissions (1.9% v. 11.8%, P = 0.053). Symptoms and quality of life did not improve.

Treatment adherence therapy helps improve engagement and adherence, and may prevent involuntary admission.