Kelly Allott1,2, Kristi van-der-El1,2, Shayden Bryce1,2, Emma M Parrish3, Susan R McGurk4, Sarah Hetrick1,2,5, Christopher R Bowie6, Sean Kidd7, Matthew Hamilton1,2, Eoin Killackey1,2, Dawn Velligan8. 1. Orygen, Parkville, Australia. 2. Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. 3. San Diego State University/University of California San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. 4. Department of Occupational Therapy, Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Boston University, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 6. Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, ON, Canada. 7. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, ON, Canada. 8. Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Health Science Centre, San Antonio, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive compensatory interventions aim to alleviate psychosocial disability by targeting functioning directly using aids and strategies, thereby minimizing the impact of cognitive impairment. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive compensatory interventions for psychosis by examining the effects on functioning and symptoms, and exploring whether intervention factors, study design, and age influenced effect sizes. METHODS: Electronic databases (Ovid Medline, PsychINFO) were searched up to October 2018. Records obtained through electronic and manual searches were screened independently by two reviewers according to selection criteria. Data were extracted to calculate estimated effects (Hedge's g) of treatment on functioning and symptoms at post-intervention and follow-up. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies, from 25 independent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis (1654 participants, mean age = 38.9 years, 64% male). Meta-analysis revealed a medium effect of compensatory interventions on functioning compared to control conditions (Hedge's g = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.33, 0.60, P < .001), with evidence of relative durability at follow-up (Hedge's g = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.19, 0.54, P < .001). Analysis also revealed small significant effects of cognitive compensatory treatment on negative, positive, and general psychiatric symptoms, but not depressive symptoms. Estimated effects did not significantly vary according to treatment factors (ie, compensatory approach, dosage), delivery method (ie, individual/group), age, or risk of bias. Longer treatment length was associated with larger effect sizes for functioning outcomes. No evidence of publication bias was identified. CONCLUSION: Cognitive compensatory interventions are associated with robust, durable improvements in functioning in people with psychotic illnesses.
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive compensatory interventions aim to alleviate psychosocial disability by targeting functioning directly using aids and strategies, thereby minimizing the impact of cognitive impairment. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive compensatory interventions for psychosis by examining the effects on functioning and symptoms, and exploring whether intervention factors, study design, and age influenced effect sizes. METHODS: Electronic databases (Ovid Medline, PsychINFO) were searched up to October 2018. Records obtained through electronic and manual searches were screened independently by two reviewers according to selection criteria. Data were extracted to calculate estimated effects (Hedge's g) of treatment on functioning and symptoms at post-intervention and follow-up. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies, from 25 independent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis (1654 participants, mean age = 38.9 years, 64% male). Meta-analysis revealed a medium effect of compensatory interventions on functioning compared to control conditions (Hedge's g = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.33, 0.60, P < .001), with evidence of relative durability at follow-up (Hedge's g = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.19, 0.54, P < .001). Analysis also revealed small significant effects of cognitive compensatory treatment on negative, positive, and general psychiatric symptoms, but not depressive symptoms. Estimated effects did not significantly vary according to treatment factors (ie, compensatory approach, dosage), delivery method (ie, individual/group), age, or risk of bias. Longer treatment length was associated with larger effect sizes for functioning outcomes. No evidence of publication bias was identified. CONCLUSION: Cognitive compensatory interventions are associated with robust, durable improvements in functioning in people with psychotic illnesses.
Authors: Dawn I Velligan; Pamela M Diamond; Jim Mintz; Natalie Maples; Xueying Li; John Zeber; Larry Ereshefsky; Yui-Wing F Lam; Desiree Castillo; Alexander L Miller Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Susan R McGurk; Kim T Mueser; Nancy H Covell; Keith D Cicerone; Robert E Drake; Steven M Silverstein; Alice Medialia; Robert Myers; Alan S Bellack; Morris D Bell; Susan M Essock Journal: Psychiatr Rehabil J Date: 2013-09
Authors: Marco Solmi; Giovanni Croatto; Giada Piva; Stella Rosson; Paolo Fusar-Poli; Jose M Rubio; Andre F Carvalho; Eduard Vieta; Celso Arango; Nicole R DeTore; Elizabeth S Eberlin; Kim T Mueser; Christoph U Correll Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 13.437
Authors: Michelle van Dam; Jaap van Weeghel; Annemarie Stiekema; Stynke Castelein; Marieke Pijnenborg; Lisette van der Meer Journal: J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 2.720