Dataset Information

Compensatory Interventions for Cognitive Impairments in Psychosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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.

SUBMITTER: Allott K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7345816 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis review provides a broad overview of the effectiveness of interventions for subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in improving psychological well-being, metacognition and objective cognitive performance.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Systematic Reviews were searched up to August 2017 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions for SCD. Interventions were categorised as psychological, cognitive, lifestyle or pharmacological. Outcomes of interest included psychological well-being, metacognitive ability and objective cognitive performance. To assess the risk of bias, three authors independently rated study validity using criteria based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken where three or more studies investigated similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes.ResultsTwenty studies met inclusion criteria and 16 had sufficient data for inclusion in the meta-analyses. Of these, only seven were rated as being high quality. Group psychological interventions significantly improved psychological well-being (g=0.40, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.76; p=0.03) but the improvement they conferred on metacognitive ability was not statistically significant (g=0.26, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.73; p=0.28). Overall, cognitive training interventions led to a small, statistically significant improvement in objective cognitive performance (g=0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.25; p=0.03). However, the pooled effect sizes of studies using active control groups (g=0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.22; p=0.85) or reporting global cognitive measures (g=0.06, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.31; p=0.66) were non-significant.ConclusionsThere is a lack of high-quality research in this field. Group psychological interventions improve psychological well-being and may also improve metacognition. A large, high-quality study is indicated to investigate this further. There is no evidence to suggest that cognitive interventions improve global cognitive performance and the clinical utility of small improvements in specific cognitive domains is questionable. There is a lack of research considering lifestyle interventions and poor quality evidence for pharmacological interventions.Prospero registration numberCRD42017079391.

Project description:Socio-cognitive impairment is frequent in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, little is known about the relationship between other potentially relevant clinical symptoms (i.e., cognition, depression, fatigue) and the degree of socio-cognitive impairment, and neural mechanisms underlying socio-cognitive deficits in MS. Therefore, we meta-analytically quantified socio-cognitive impairment in MS. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, CENTRAL, and PsycInfo was conducted until December 2022. Studies investigating affective or cognitive theory of mind (a/cToM), visual perspective taking (VPT) and social decision making (SDM) in MS patients relative to healthy controls were included. Risk-of-bias (RoB) was assessed using the CLARITY group "Tool for Assessing RoB in Cohort Studies". Mediation analysis investigated the contribution of clinical symptoms to socio-cognitive impairment. In total, n = 8534 studies were screened, 58 were included in the systematic review, 27 in the meta-analyses. Most studies were rated with a moderate RoB. Meta-analyses confirmed impairment of both aToM and cToM in MS patients, with larger effect sizes for aToM. Mediation analysis demonstrated that higher levels of fatigue selectively predicted the degree of cToM impairment. There was insufficient data available to quantify impairment in other socio-cognitive domains. Fourteen structural and functional imaging studies were identified and characterized by substantial heterogeneity. Summarized, this study confirmed substantial socio-cognitive impairment in MS and highlights the potential exacerbating role of comorbid clinical symptoms. We identify several evidence gaps that need to be addressed in future large-scale studies using comprehensive and coordinated assessments of socio-cognitive parameters, potential mediators, and neural correlates.Trial registration: The pre-registered review protocol can be assessed at www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (ID: CRD42020206225).

Project description:Family interventions for psychosis (FIp) are effective in reducing service user relapse and carer distress in people with schizophrenia-spectrum conditions. Several treatment and best practice guidelines recommend FIp for all people with schizophrenia. However, outcome findings in relation to early psychosis groups have been inconsistent. The current paper reports a systematic review and meta-analyses of articles that evaluated FIp in early psychosis with a clearly defined comparison group. A combination of electronic database searches (using PsychINFO, Medline, and CENTRAL), citation searches and hand searches of key journals and reviews was conducted. Peer-reviewed articles published in English from database inception to June 2016 were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP). Seventeen papers from 14 studies met inclusion criteria for review, the overall quality of which was moderate. Meta-analytic synthesis showed that FIp improved service user functioning and reduced the likelihood of relapse by the end of treatment. Psychotic symptoms were significantly reduced in the FIp group at follow up, but this was not evident at end of treatment. In terms of FIp target mechanisms, carers receiving FIp were more likely to shift from high to low expressed emotion and less likely to report patient focused criticism or engage in conflict communication than carers randomized to standard care. Carer burden and well-being were improved by the end of treatment but gains were not sustained at follow up. FIp had no impact on carer emotional over-involvement. The findings indicate that FIp is an effective intervention for early psychosis service users and their relatives. However, further research is required to establish which key therapeutic components of FIp are most effective for whom, in addition to understanding the mechanisms by which FIp might affect positive change.

Project description:At present, prevention is particularly important when there is no effective treatment for cognitive decline. Since the adverse events of pharmacological interventions counterbalance the benefits, nonpharmacological approaches seem desirable to prevent cognitive decline. To our knowledge, no meta-analyses have been published on nonpharmacological interventions preventing cognitive decline. To investigate whether nonpharmacological interventions play a role in preventing cognitive decline among older people, we searched related trials up to March 31, 2019, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials and the Cochrane library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they enrolled participants older than 60 years of age who had a risk of cognitive decline, and the interventions were nonpharmacological. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence. Heterogeneity was quantified with I2. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to research the sources of heterogeneity. Influence analyses were used to detect and remove extreme effect sizes (outliers) in our meta-analysis. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Egger test. Primary outcomes were the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) scores. Second outcomes were activities of daily living (ADL) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. A total of 22 studies with 13,264 participants were identified for analysis. In terms of prevention, nonpharmacological interventions appeared to be more effective than control conditions, as assessed by the incidence of MCI or dementia (RR, 0.73; CI, 0.55-0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), while the results of ADAS-Cog suggested no significant differences between two groups (MD, -0.69; CI, -1.52-0.14; very low-certainty evidence). Second outcomes revealed a significant improvement from nonpharmacological interventions versus control in terms of the change in ADL (MD, 0.73; CI, 0.65-0.80) and MMSE scores (posttreatment scores: MD, 0.25; CI, 0.02-0.47; difference scores: MD, 0.59, CI, 0.29-0.88). Univariable meta-regression showed association between lower case of MCI or dementia and two subgroup factors (P?=?0.013 for sample size; P?=?0.037 for area). Multiple meta-regression suggested that these four subgroup factors were not associated with decreased incidence of MCI (P?>?0.05 for interaction). The Naive RR estimate was calculated as 0.73. When the three studies that detected by outlier and influence analysis were left out, the Robust RR was 0.66. In conclusion, nonpharmacological therapy could have an indicative role in reducing the case of MCI or dementia. However, given the heterogeneity of the included RCTs, more preregistered trials are needed that explicitly examine the association between nonpharmacological therapy and cognitive decline prevention, and consider relevant moderators.