Metacognition and recovery style in psychosis

Section A reviews the literature which has investigated variables found to relate to recovery style in individuals with psychosis. Studies exploring the attachment, self-esteem, depression and executive functioning are evaluated and conclusions drawn.
Section B reports the findings of an empirical study investigating the relationship between metacognition, recovery style, anxiety and depression in a community sample of individuals with psychosis.
Objective; Research has shown that individuals with psychosis will either integrate their experience of psychosis or seal the experience over. Little is known about what leads to these different styles of recovery but poor attachment, depression, low self-esteem and poor executive functioning have been linked to a sealing-over style. This study hypothesised that sealing is linked to unhealthy metacognitive beliefs and also to higher levels of anxiety and depression.
Method; Forty-three participants with a diagnosis of psychosis were recruited. They completed the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30, Recovery Style Questionnaire and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Results; Correlational analysis revealed that only one facet of metacognition linked to sealing over; this being positive beliefs about worry and this was maintained when the effects of anxiety and depression were accounted for. Contrary to the hypothesis, recovery style did not correlate with anxiety or depression but unhealthy metacognition was linked to both anxiety and depression.
Conclusions; The findings of this study suggest that a sealing-over recovery style may be linked to one specific area of metacognitive dysfunction. They also cast doubt on previous theories which link low mood to a sealing-over style. Limitations of this study include its cross-sectional design. Future research which expands on these findings is encouraged and longitudinal research is particularly called for.
Section C provides a critical evaluation of the project, answering four questions regarding what the author has learnt from the study, what might have been done differently, how the study might affect the author‟s clinical work in future and possible future research directions.