Alice M Saperstein1, Alice Medalia1,2, Iruma Bello2, Lisa B Dixon1,2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, New York, USA. 2. Division of Behavioral Health Services and Policy Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City, New York, USA.
Abstract
AIM: Addressing cognitive health during the early phase of psychosis has the potential to enhance recovery outcomes, yet methods to assess and treat cognitive problems are not a systematic part of Coordinated Specialty Care (CSC) in the United States. We sought to understand how CSC providers perceive cognitive health and gauge the acceptability and appropriateness of cognitive interventions to inform the development and implementation of a cognitive health toolkit for OnTrackNY, a CSC program. METHODS: Electronic surveys were sent to clinicians from 22 OnTrackNY teams. One unstructured and 10 structured questions assessed knowledge and beliefs about cognition, current cognitive health practices, the likelihood of adopting new practices, perceived facilitators, and barriers to assessing and treating cognitive health. RESULTS: Fifty-three clinicians responded. Clinicians identified a range of terms associated with cognitive impairment with specific neurocognitive deficits cited most frequently. The majority perceived the evidence for cognitive impairment at the time of first episode to be moderate to strong, that specific interventions for cognition are warranted, and that there is a significant link between cognition and community functioning. While current practices vary, 88% indicated a high likelihood of integrating tools to address cognitive problems if provided. Compensatory approaches to aid cognitive functioning were viewed most favourably. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that addressing cognitive health is acceptable and appropriate for OnTrackNY but there is a need for systematic training to integrate empirically supported interventions with existing recovery-oriented practices. Piloting a cognitive health toolkit will inform the potential uptake of assessment and treatment practices more broadly.
AIM: Addressing cognitive health during the early phase of psychosis has the potential to enhance recovery outcomes, yet methods to assess and treat cognitive problems are not a systematic part of Coordinated Specialty Care (CSC) in the United States. We sought to understand how CSC providers perceive cognitive health and gauge the acceptability and appropriateness of cognitive interventions to inform the development and implementation of a cognitive health toolkit for OnTrackNY, a CSC program. METHODS: Electronic surveys were sent to clinicians from 22 OnTrackNY teams. One unstructured and 10 structured questions assessed knowledge and beliefs about cognition, current cognitive health practices, the likelihood of adopting new practices, perceived facilitators, and barriers to assessing and treating cognitive health. RESULTS: Fifty-three clinicians responded. Clinicians identified a range of terms associated with cognitive impairment with specific neurocognitive deficits cited most frequently. The majority perceived the evidence for cognitive impairment at the time of first episode to be moderate to strong, that specific interventions for cognition are warranted, and that there is a significant link between cognition and community functioning. While current practices vary, 88% indicated a high likelihood of integrating tools to address cognitive problems if provided. Compensatory approaches to aid cognitive functioning were viewed most favourably. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that addressing cognitive health is acceptable and appropriate for OnTrackNY but there is a need for systematic training to integrate empirically supported interventions with existing recovery-oriented practices. Piloting a cognitive health toolkit will inform the potential uptake of assessment and treatment practices more broadly.
Authors: Paul D Mendella; Cynthia Z Burton; Giorgio A Tasca; Paul Roy; Lea St Louis; Elizabeth W Twamley Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Franco Mascayano; Ilana Nossel; Iruma Bello; Thomas Smith; Hong Ngo; Sarah Piscitelli; Igor Malinovsky; Ezra Susser; Lisa Dixon Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Iruma Bello; Rufina Lee; Igor Malinovsky; Liza Watkins; Ilana Nossel; Thomas Smith; Hong Ngo; Michael Birnbaum; Leslie Marino; Lloyd I Sederer; Marleen Radigan; Gyojeong Gu; Susan Essock; Lisa B Dixon Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Keith H Nuechterlein; Kenneth L Subotnik; Michael F Green; Joseph Ventura; Robert F Asarnow; Michael J Gitlin; Cindy M Yee; Denise Gretchen-Doorly; Jim Mintz Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Elizabeth W Twamley; Lea Vella; Cynthia Z Burton; Robert K Heaton; Dilip V Jeste Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Raquelle I Mesholam-Gately; Anthony J Giuliano; Kirsten P Goff; Stephen V Faraone; Larry J Seidman Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sean A Kidd; Yarissa Herman; Gursharan Virdee; Christopher R Bowie; Dawn Velligan; Christina Plagiannakos; Aristotle Voineskos Journal: Schizophr Res Cogn Date: 2019-07-24
Authors: Alice M Saperstein; Alice Medalia; Igor Malinovsky; Iruma Bello; Lisa B Dixon Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 2.721