| Literature DB >> 32269534 |
Andrew Thompson1,2, Farah Elahi2, Alba Realpe3, Max Birchwood2, David Taylor4, Ivo Vlaev5, Fiona Leahy2, Sandra Bucci6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Addressing specific social cognitive difficulties is an important target in early psychosis and may help address poor functional outcomes. However, structured interventions using standard therapy settings including groups suffer from difficulties in recruitment and retention. AIMS: To address these issues, we aimed to modify an existing group social cognitive intervention entitled 'Social Cognition and Interaction Training' (SCIT) to be delivered through a virtual world environment (Second Life ©).Entities:
Keywords: first episode psychosis; proof-of-concept trial; psychosis; social cognition therapy; virtual environments; virtual world
Year: 2020 PMID: 32269534 PMCID: PMC7109496 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00219
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Figure 1Screenshots of the Second Life© environment adapted from (20).
Figure 2SCIT-VR therapy structure.
Participant demographics, psychopathology and neurocognitive measures at baseline.
| Variable | Value | |
|---|---|---|
| Mean | 25.61 | |
| SD | 6.49 | |
| Male | 14 | |
| Female | 5 | |
| A level | 3 | |
| Trade or technical training (incomplete) | 5 | |
| Trade or technical training (complete) | 6 | |
| Tertiary diploma/certificate | 2 | |
| Undergraduate degree (incomplete) | 1 | |
| Undergraduate degree (complete) | 2 | |
| Mean | 38.21 | |
| SD | 6.35 | |
| Mean | 28.06 | |
| SD | 7.78 | |
| Trail A mean time (secs) | 35.95 | |
| SD | 11.63 | |
| Trail B mean time (secs) | 113.58 | |
| SD | 74.28 | |
Acceptability ratings (0–5) for each item of the feedback questionnaire.
| Q1:Suitable level of content ( | 4.40 | 0.54 | 3 | 5 |
| Q2:Relevance and value of the content | 4.16 | 0.56 | 3 | 5 |
| Q3:Guidance from the therapist | 4.69 | 0.51 | 4 | 5 |
| Q4:Encouragement to participate and interact | 4.57 | 0.67 | 3 | 5 |
| Q5:Safety of the VR world | 4.70 | 0.61 | 2 | 5 |
Total acceptability ratings (0–25) for each session of VEEP.
| 1: SCIT-VR and social cognition definition | 22.11 | 1.62 | 19 | 25 |
| 2: Defining emotions | 21.71 | 2.06 | 19 | 24 |
| 3: Guessing people's emotions | 22.33 | 1.94 | 19 | 25 |
| 4: Suspicious feelings | 22.25 | 2.63 | 20 | 25 |
| 5: Jumping to conclusions | 22.6 | 2.88 | 19 | 25 |
| 6: Separate facts from guesses & gathering more information | 23.75 | 1.26 | 22 | 25 |
| 7: Checking it out—part I | 22.6 | 2.3 | 19 | 25 |
| 8: Checking it out—part II | 24 | 0 | 24 | 24 |
Participants were also given the opportunity to provide a written feedback response on the questionnaire. Written responses are presented in .
Feedback and illustrative quotes.
| Privacy and Safety | "I think it was safe yeah no I don't think erm I had any concerns of like you know people listening in who shouldn't be or people able to access...” (Participant 017) |
| Anonymity | “Cause I didn't know them, I didn't think it would be too much of an issue. So I said some certain things about like my psychosis.” (Participant 005) |
| Second Life Environments | “I thought that was pretty good with the different rooms, the different therapy rooms.” (Participant 015) |
| Sense of Realism | “you know the graphics could've been a bit better? “ |
| Treatment content and delivery | “I think the content was delivered...comprehensively during the presentations, during the sessions, I didn't feel I needed to go back and re-read anything.” (Participant 017) |
| Impact of treatment on wellbeing | “About...you know...what people, what you think they might mean and what they actually mean. You know like with facial expressions, you-you can come up and say, ‘Oh were they were they giving me a dirty look?' When actually if you think about it they may be having a bad day or there maybe other reasons so...yeah I found that useful.” (Participant 007) |
| Support during the treatment | “Not much. Literally not much. Everything (Research Associate's name) set up perfectly. Like she put it on and all I had to do ‘cause she even saved my login details so I didn't even have to put them in once.” (Participant 005) |
| Technological Difficulties | "I would log in five minutes before the session, my computer would crash, and I would spend the next ten minutes trying to login, and I'll be five minutes late" (Participant 016) |
| Duration and timing of treatment | “Cause the times they were aren't ermm like you said yeah I think evenings maybe better for some people. Depending on you know, I suppose age and whether they work or not. “ (Participant 007) |
Figure 3Bar chart to show means and 95% confidence intervals of BLERT scores from pre- to post-intervention.
Figure 4Bar chart to show means and 95% confidence intervals of EuroQual-5D-Anxiety/depression subscale ratings from pre- to post-intervention.
Pre- and post-intervention means and SDs for secondary outcomes.
| Variable | Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | p value | Hedges' g | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||
| BPRS | Total | 38.21 | 6.35 | 36.4 | 9.16 | 0.348 | 0.23 |
| Anxiety | 2.16 | 1.26 | 2.33 | 1.35 | 0.843 | 0.13 | |
| Depression | 2 | 0.94 | 2.13 | 1.19 | 0.818 | 0.12 | |
| SCSQ | Total SCSQ | 31.13 | 3.52 | 33.29 | 3.4 | 0.253 | 0.61 |
| Theory of mind | 7.05 | 2.2 | 8 | 1.56 | 0.173 | 0.49 | |
| Schematic Inference | 6.95 | 1.27 | 7.67 | 1.23 | 0.126 | 0.56 | |
| Verbal memory | 7.89 | 1.15 | 8.33 | 1.23 | 0.164 | 0.36 | |
| Metacognition | 9.24 | 0.77 | 9.29 | 0.64 | 0.823 | 0.07 | |
| Hostility bias | 1.68 | 1.25 | 1.47 | 1.36 | 0.855 | 0.16 | |
| BLERT | 13.84 | 4.36 | 15.53 | 3.16 | 0.006 | 0.58 | |
| Hinting task | 17.84 | 2.39 | 18.67 | 1.72 | 0.344 | 0.39 | |
| CSQ-SF | CSQ-SF-Total | 195.16 | 27.4 | 191.53 | 24.2 | 0.13 | 0.14 |
| Internality subscale | 47.32 | 5.7 | 49.53 | 4.87 | 0.337 | 0.41 | |
| Globality | 43.21 | 8.16 | 43.2 | 7.1 | 0.453 | 0 | |
| Stability | 42.58 | 6.55 | 39.67 | 6.95 | 0.098 | 0.42 | |
| Negative Consequences | 21.32 | 4.73 | 20.13 | 4.63 | 0.219 | 0.25 | |
| Self-worth implications | 40.47 | 9.32 | 38.67 | 8.93 | 0.067 | 0.19 | |
| PSP | 66.74 | 15.65 | 67.87 | 14.03 | 0.773 | 0.07 | |
| EuroQual-5D | Total | 8.74 | 3.81 | 8.6 | 3.79 | 0.187 | 0.04 |
| Anxiety/depression | 2.58 | 1.3 | 2.07 | 1.1 | 0.029 | 0.41 | |
| EuroQual-VAS | 71 | 16.92 | 70 | 21.04 | 0.669 | 0.05 | |
| TDF-4 (Beliefs about capabilities) | Total | 2.57 | 0.55 | 2.38 | 0.56 | 0.486 | 0.33 |
| Group | 2.64 | 0.73 | 2.55 | 0.75 | 0.673 | 0.12 | |
| Individual | 2.51 | 0.48 | 2.33 | 0.57 | 0.331 | 0.33 | |
| TDF-8 (intentions) | Total | 2.48 | 0.82 | 2.21 | 0.61 | 0.576 | 0.37 |
| Group | 2.56 | 0.8 | 2.24 | 0.68 | 0.454 | 0.45 | |
| Individual | 2.4 | 0.88 | 2.18 | 0.63 | 0.777 | 0.28 | |
| TDF-9 (Goals) | Total | 2.98 | 0.73 | 2.72 | 0.56 | 0.399 | 0.39 |
| Group | 3.03 | 0.7 | 2.68 | 0.68 | 0.274 | 0.49 | |
| Individual | 2.93 | 0.81 | 2.76 | 0.52 | 0.772 | 0.25 | |
The pre- and post-intervention means (SD), t values, p values, and effect sizes (Hedges's g) for level of psychopathology (total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale—BPRS), anxiety and depression subscales of the BPRS, total and each subscale of the Social Cognitive Screening Questionnaire (SCSQ), Bell Lysaker Emotion Recognition Task (BLERT), hinting task, total and each subscale of the Cognitive Screening Questionnaire-Short Form (CSQ-SF), Personal and Social Performance scale (PSP), Euro-Qual-5D Quality of life Scale (EuroQual-5D) -total and anxiety/depression subscale, EuroQual-Visual Analogue Scale (EuroQual-VAS), Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) 4, 8, & 9 totals, group and individual ratings are presented.