| Literature DB >> 36066923 |
Thelma Schilt1,2,3, Elvira Sharine Ruijter1,3,4, Nikky Godeschalk1,2,3, Marit van Haaster1,2, Anna E Goudriaan1,3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Addiction is a worldwide problem with major health complications. Despite intensive treatment, relapse rates remain high. The prevalence of cognitive impairment is high in patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) and is associated with treatment dropout and relapse. Evidence indicates that cognitive function training in persons with SUDs may support treatment. Therefore, the use of web-based tools to test and train cognitive functions is of increasing interest.Entities:
Keywords: addiction care; cognitive assessment; cognitive training; digital applications; health applications; mental health; mobile health; mobile phone; neurocognition; smartphone
Year: 2022 PMID: 36066923 PMCID: PMC9490544 DOI: 10.2196/34159
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Form Res ISSN: 2561-326X
Figure 1Screenshots of one of the tests and overview page of the MyCognition Quotient neurocognitive assessment, with scores on the five domains assessed (attention, executive functions, episodic memory, and processing speed). On the right, a screenshot of one of the AquaSnap serious games [44].
Patient characteristics in the total sample and groups that used and did not use the app MyCognition Quotient (MyCQ).
| Patient characteristics | Total | MyCQ | Non-MyCQ | Test | ||
|
| 229b (100) | 110 (100) | 119 (100) | .58 | Chi-square | |
|
| Male | 152 (66.4) | 75 (68.2) | 77 (64.7) |
|
|
|
| Female | 77 (33.6) | 35 (31.8) | 42 (35.3) |
|
|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 42.0 (12.7) | 43.7 (12.9) | 40.4 (12.3) | .06 | Mann-Whitney | |
|
| 174 (100) | 87 (100) | 87 (100) |
| Chi-square | |
|
| Low | 20 (11.5) | 5 (5.7) | 15 (17.2) |
|
|
|
| Average | 63 (36.2) | 30 (34.5) | 33 (37.9) |
|
|
|
| High | 91 (52.3) | 52 (59.8) | 39 (44.8) |
|
|
|
| 217 (100) | 105 (100) | 112 (100) | .25 | Chi-square | |
|
| Alcohol | 101 (46.5) | 53 (50.5) | 48 (42.8) |
|
|
|
| Cannabis | 47 (21.7) | 20 (19) | 27 (24.1) |
|
|
|
| Cocaine | 24 (11.1) | 10 (9.5) | 14 (12.5) |
|
|
|
| Nicotine | 15 (6.9) | 8 (7.6) | 7 (6.3) |
|
|
|
| Stimulants | 9 (4.1) | 2 (1.9) | 7 (6.3) |
|
|
|
| Sedatives | 7 (3.2) | 2 (1.9) | 5 (4.5) |
|
|
|
| Other | 6 (2.8) | 5 (4.8) | 1 (0.9) |
|
|
|
| Gambling | 8 (3.7) | 5 (4.8) | 3 (2.7) |
|
|
|
| 174 (100) | 87 (100) | 87 (100) | .45 | Chi-square | |
|
| Policlinic | 96 (55.2) | 51 (58.6) | 45 (51.7) |
|
|
|
| Daycare | 41 (23.6) | 17 (19.5) | 24 (27.6) |
|
|
|
| Clinic | 37 (21.3) | 19 (21.8) | 18 (20.7) |
|
|
|
| 149 (100) | 75 (100) | 74 (100) |
| ||
|
| Depression | 15.8 (11.2) | 17.4 (11.7) | 14.2 (10.4) | .08 |
|
|
| Anxiety | 10.4 (9.1) | 10.6 (9.6) | 10.2 (8.5) | .82 |
|
|
| Stress | 15.9 (8.8) | 16.5 (8.7) | 15.2 (8.9) | .35 |
|
|
| Total | 42.0 (25.8) | 44.5 (26.9) | 39.6 (24.7) | .25 |
|
|
| 136 (100) | 69 (100) | 67 (100) |
| ||
|
| Total | 51.8 (13.3) | 51.6 (12.9) | 52.1 (13.7) | .85 |
|
aBetween-group comparisons.
bBecause of missing data, the n included is mentioned separately.
cSignificant at .05 level
dDASS-t0: Depression Anxiety Stress Scale scores at baseline.
eMANSA-t0: Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life scores at baseline.
Patient characteristics of the participants who used the MyCognition Quotient app and per those who used and did not use the AquaSnap app.
| Patient characteristics | Total | AquaSnap | Non-AquaSnap | Test | |||||||
|
| 110b (100) | 59 (100) | 51 (100) | .01 | Chi-square | ||||||
|
| Male | 75 (68.2) | 34 (57.6) | 41 (80.4) |
|
| |||||
|
| Female | 35 (31.8) | 25 (42.4) | 10 (19.6) |
|
| |||||
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 43.7 (12.9) | 44.8 (12.4) | 42.6 (13.5) | .27 | Mann-Whitney | ||||||
|
| 87 (100) | 46 (100) | 41 (100) | .06 | Chi-square | ||||||
|
| Low | 5 (5.7) | 4 (8.7) | 1 (2.4) |
|
| |||||
|
| Average | 30 (34.5) | 11 (23.9) | 19 (46.3) |
|
| |||||
|
| High | 52 (59.8) | 31 (67.4) | 21 (51.2) |
|
| |||||
|
| 105 (100) | 57 (100) | 48 (100) | .29 | Chi-square | ||||||
|
| Alcohol | 53 (50.5) | 29 (50.9) | 24 (50) |
|
| |||||
|
| Cannabis | 20 (19) | 12 (21.1) | 8 (16.7) |
|
| |||||
|
| Cocaine | 10 (9.5) | 5 (8.8) | 5 (10.4) |
|
| |||||
|
| Nicotine | 8 (7.6) | 6 (10.5) | 2 (4.2) |
|
| |||||
|
| Stimulants | 2 (1.9) | 2 (3.5) | 0 (0) |
|
| |||||
|
| Sedatives | 2 (1.9) | 0 (0) | 2 (4.2) |
|
| |||||
|
| Other | 5 (4.8) | 2 (3.5) | 3 (6.3) |
|
| |||||
|
| Gambling | 5 (4.8) | 1 (1.8) | 4 (8.3) |
|
| |||||
|
| 87 (100) | 47 (100) | 41 (100) | .40 | Chi-square | ||||||
|
| Policlinic | 51 (58.6) | 30 (65.2) | 21 (51.2) |
|
| |||||
|
| Daycare | 17 (19.5) | 8 (17.4) | 9 (22) |
|
| |||||
|
| Clinic | 19 (21.8) | 8 (17.4) | 11 (26.8) |
|
| |||||
|
| 75 (100) | 44 (100) | 31 (100) |
| |||||||
|
| Depression | 17.4 (11.7) | 17.5 (10.8) | 17.3 (13.1) | .95 |
| |||||
|
| Anxiety | 10.6 (9.6) | 11.6 (10.4) | 9.0 (8.3) | .25 |
| |||||
|
| Stress | 16.5 (8.7) | 16.9 (8.8) | 16.1 (8.6) | .70 |
| |||||
|
| Total | 44.5 (26.9) | 46 (27.1) | 42.4 (26.7) | .58 |
| |||||
|
| 69 (100) | 40 (100) | 29 (100) |
| |||||||
|
| Total | 51.6 (12.9) | 50.4 (12.6) | 53.3 (13.5) | .35 |
| |||||
aBetween-group comparisons.
bBecause of missing data, the n included is mentioned separately.
cDASS-t0: Depression Anxiety Stress Scale scores at baseline.
dMANSA-t0: Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life scores at baseline.
Mann-Whitney U test results for the comparison of baseline MyCognition Quotient (MyCQ) scores between participants who used and did not use AquaSnap.
| MyCQ assessment | AquaSnap (na=59), mean (SD) | Non-AquaSnap (n=50), mean (SD) | |
| Attention latencyb | 516 (106) | 515 (139) | .89 |
| Attention accuracyc | 95 (10) | 93 (17) | .69 |
| Processing speed latency | 362 (70) | 356 (75) | .94 |
| Processing speed accuracy | 96 (5) | 93 (17) | .22 |
| Working memory latency | 1312 (403) | 1283 (444) | .58 |
| Working memory accuracy | 89 (14) | 87 (15) | .41 |
| Episodic memory latency | 1128 (205) | 1202 (428) | .56 |
| Episodic memory accuracy | 92 (7) | 89 (8) |
|
| Executive functioning latency | 1417 (1298) | 1716 (1535) | .16 |
| Executive functioning accuracy | 91 (14) | 89 (16) | .21 |
aOwing to missing data for the subtest attention, n was 54 and 47, respectively.
bLatency in milliseconds.
cAccuracy in % true.
dThis correlation was significant at the .03 level.
Frequencies (%) perception questionnaire regarding serious gaming apps.
|
| Ratingsa, n (%) | Value, mean (SD) | ||||||
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| ||
|
| ||||||||
|
| 1. Did you like the MyCQ task? | 1 (2) | 2 (4) | 5 (11) | 28 (61) | 10 (22) | 4 (0.8) | |
|
| 2. Did the MyCQ task contribute to your addiction treatment? | 13 (28) | 10 (22) | 14 (30) | 7 (15) | 2 (4) | 2.5 (1.2) | |
|
| 3. Did the MyCQ task provide insight into your brain functions? | 4 (9) | 3 (7) | 5 (11) | 31 (67) | 3 (7) | 3.6 (1) | |
|
| 4. Would you continue with MyCQ after your treatment? | 15 (33) | 10 (22) | 5 (11) | 13 (28) | 3 (7) | 2.5 (1.4) | |
|
| 5. Was MyCQ easy in use? | 1 (2) | 6 (13) | 4 (9) | 20 (43) | 15 (33) | 3.9 (1) | |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 1. Did you like the AquaSnap game? | 1 (3) | 11 (32) | 8 (24) | 8 (24) | 6(18) | 3 (1) | |
|
| 2. Do you think your brain functions are improved by playing AquaSnap? | 4 (12) | 7 (21) | 7 (21) | 14 (41) | 2 (6) | 2.8 (1.3) | |
|
| 3. Did AquaSnap contribute to your addiction treatment? | 9 (27) | 5 (15) | 8 (24) | 10 (29) | 2 (6) | 2.5 (1.3) | |
|
| 4. Did playing AquaSnap help you better manage your addiction? | 11 (32) | 11 (32) | 7 (21) | 4 (12) | 1 (3) | 2.1 (1.1) | |
|
| 5. Do you think the chance to relapse have diminished through AquaSnap? | 13 (38) | 7(21) | 10 (29) | 3 (9) | 1 (3) | 2.1 (1.1) | |
|
| 6. Would you continue with AquaSnap after your treatment? | 11 (32) | 5 (15) | 8 (24) | 7 (21) | 3 (9) | 2.4 (1.4) | |
|
| 7. Did you find AquaSnap easy in use? | 1 (3) | 6 (18) | 4 (12) | 17 (50) | 6 (18) | 3.3 (1.3) | |
a1=totally disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=totally agree.
bMyCQ: MyCognition Quotient.
Spearman ρ correlations between the number of playing minutes with AquaSnap and AquaSnap ratings (n=34).
| AquaSnap questionsa | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| ρ | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | −0.02 |
| <.001 | .002 | .001 | .008 | .005 | .004 | .93 |
aSee Table 4.
Spearman ρ correlations between the number of playing minutes with AquaSnap and change scoresa between the first (T1) and second (T2) MyCognition Quotient (MyCQ) assessments.
|
| Attention latency | Attention accuracy | Processing speed latency | Processing speed accuracy | Working memory latency | Working memory accuracy | Episodic memory latency | Episodic memory accuracy | Executive functioning latency | Executive functioning accuracy | ||||||||||
| n | 42 | 42 | 44 | 44 | 46 | 46 | 46 | 46 | 46 | 46 | ||||||||||
| ρ | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | −0.1 |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | −0.2 | − | ||||||||||
| .59 | .66 | .25 | .72 |
| .88 | .84 | .22 | .14 |
| |||||||||||
aLatency (speed in milliseconds) change scores T1 minus T2; accuracy (% true) change scores T2 minus T1.
bCorrelation is significant at the .03 level (2-tailed).