| Literature DB >> 31156479 |
Yuji Yamada1, Takuma Inagawa1, Kazuki Sueyoshi2, Norio Sugawara3, Natsuki Ueda3, Yoshie Omachi1, Naotsugu Hirabayashi1, Madoka Matsumoto2, Tomiki Sumiyoshi2.
Abstract
Backgrounds: Social cognition deficits are a core feature of schizophrenia and deteriorate functionality of patients. However, evidence is sparse for the treatment effect on social cognition impairments in the early stage of psychosis. Here, we provide a systematic review of the literature on social cognitive impairment in early psychosis in relation to its intervention.Entities:
Keywords: at risk mental state; emotion recognition; first-episode psychosis; randomized controlled trial; schizophrenia; theory of mind; ultra-high risk
Year: 2019 PMID: 31156479 PMCID: PMC6529574 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00333
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Cognitive scales used.
| Study (year) | Emotion recognition | Theory of mind | Attributional bias |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoriels et al. (2011) ( | ERT | − | − |
| Lees et al. (2017) ( | MCCB-social cognition | − | − |
| Cacciotti-Saija et al. (2015) ( | FEEST Movie Stills Task | FBPST, Faux Pas Task, Empathy Quotient, RMET | Ambiguous Intentions Hostility Question |
| Fernandez-Gonzalo et al. (2015) ( | POFA | ToM 1st order, ToM 2nd order, Hinting Task, RMET | IPSAQ |
| Mendella et al. (2015) ( | MSCEIT | − | − |
ERT, Emotion Recognition Task; MCCB,Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) Consensus Cognitive Battery; FEEST, Facial Expressions of Emotions Task; POFA, Pictures of Facial Affect; MSCEIT, Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; FBPST, False Belief Picture Sequencing Task; RMET, Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test; IPSAQ, Internal, Personal and Situational Attributions Questionnaire.
Figure 1Study selection flowchart, following the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. Initially, titles and abstracts were screened to identify eligible studies. Full-text articles were obtained for all the studies considered compatible, based on the abstract screening, and were further reviewed for eligibility.
Figure 2Assessment of risk of bias for included studies, based on the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. We determined whether each trial had a low, high, or uncertain risk of bias in terms of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases.
Summary of studies comparing the performance on social cognition tasks in individuals with early psychosis.
| Study (year) | Participants (number) | Age (years) | Gender | Intervention (number) | Control (number) | Outcome domains | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scoriels et al. (2011) ( | FEP (40) | Crossover design 25 (2) | 77.5 | Modafinil (40) | Placebo (40) | Emotion recognition | Significant effects |
| Lees et al. (2017) ( | Early psychosis (40) | Crossover design 25.7 (4.9) | 73.8 | Modafinil (40) | Placebo (40) | Emotion recognition | No significant effects |
| Cacciotti-Saija et al. (2015) ( | Early psychosis (52) | Intervention 21.5 (4.2) Control 22.3 (4.4) | 69.2 | SCT + Oxytocin (27) | SCT + Placebo (25) | Emotion recognition | No significant effects in any domains |
| Fernandez-Gonzalo et al. (2015) ( | Early psychosis (53) | Intervention 30.9 (5.9) Control 30.0 (7.4) | 64.2 | NPT-MH (28) | Nonspecific computer training (25) | Emotion recognition | Significant effects only in emotion recognition |
| Mendella et al. (2015) ( | FEP (27) | Intervention 25.0 (3.9) Control 24.8 (2.6) | 74.1 | CCT (16) | TAU (11) | Emotion recognition | Significant effects |
FEP, first-episode psychosis; SD, standard deviation; SCT, social cognition training. Participants underwent a 6-week group-based program. The program involved a combination of group learning activities (70% of total session time) and computer-based training tasks (30% of session time) completed in pairs. NPT-MH, Neuro Personal Trainer–Mental Health; a new cognitive exercise based on multimedia content; CCT, compensatory cognitive training; TAU, treatment as usual.
Effect of intervention on social cognition performance.
| Study | Scales | Intervention | Control | p-value | Effect size | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline mean (SD) score | Posttreatment mean (SD) score | Baseline mean (SD) score | Posttreatment mean (SD) score | Partial η2 | |||
| Scoriels et al. ( | ERT-sadness | 83.6 (3.18) | 91.8 (2.09) | 83.6 (3.18) | 91.8 (2.09) | 0.003 | 0.330 (Hedges’ |
| Lees et al. ( | MCCB-social cognition | 38.8 (9.4) | 40.2 (11.5) | 38.8 (9.4) | 40.2 (11.5) | 0.22 | 0.139 (Hedges’ |
| Cacciotti-Saija et al. ( | FEEST | 45.0 (7.3) | 49.4 (6.5) | 44.9 (7.5) | 48.8 (8.3) | 0.93 | 0.001 |
| Fernandez-Gonzalo et al. ( | POFA | 45.6 (6.0) | 50.2 (5.0) | 45.2 (5.0) | 46.8 (4.2) | 0.009 | 0.167 |
| Mendella et al. ( | MSCEIT | 42.8 (12.2) | 47.3 (9.5) | 46.3 (10.8) | 42.3 (10.7) | 0.04 | 0.17 |
SD, standard deviation, Effect sizes (partial η2) indicate small > 0.01, medium > 0.06, and large > 0.14 effects. ERT, Emotion Recognition Task; MCCB, MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery; FEEST, Facial Expressions of Emotions Task; FBPST, False Belief Picture Sequencing Task; RMET, Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test; AIHQ, Ambiguous Intentions Hostility Question; POFA, Pictures of Facial Affect; IPSAQ, Internal, Personal and Situational Attributions Questionnaire; MSCEIT, Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test.