Search

Background: Technology-based interventions (TBIs) are a useful approach when attempting to provide therapy to more patients with psychosis., Methods: Randomized controlled trials of outcomes of TBIs v. face-to-face interventions in psychosis were identified in a systematic search conducted in PubMed/Ovid MEDLINE. Data were extracted independently by two researchers, and standardized mean changes were pooled using a three-level model and network meta-analysis., Results: Fifty-eight studies were included. TBIs complementing treatment as usual (TAU) were generally superior to face-to-face interventions ( g = 0.16, p ≤ 0.0001) and to specific outcomes, namely, neurocognition ( g = 0.13, p ≤ 0.0001), functioning ( g = 0.25, p = 0.006), and social cognition ( g = 0.32, p ≤ 0.05). Based on the network meta-analysis, the effect of two TBIs differed significantly from zero; these were the TBIs cognitive training for the neurocognitive outcome [ g = 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.23] and cognitive behavioral therapy for quality of life ( g = 1.27; 95% CI 0.46-2.08). The variables educational level, type of medication, frequency of the intervention, and contact during the intervention moderated the effectiveness of TBIs over face-to-face interventions in neurocognition and symptomatology., Conclusions: TBIs are effective for the management of neurocognition, symptomatology, functioning, social cognition, and quality of life outcomes in patients with psychosis. The results of the network meta-analysis showed the efficacy of some TBIs for neurocognition, symptomatology, and quality of life. Therefore, TBIs should be considered a complement to TAU in patients with psychosis.

Introduction: Previous studies have shown an improvement in the access to treatment for patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP), specifically young patients, through mobile app–based interventions. The aim of this study is to test the effectiveness of a mobile app–based intervention to improve community functioning in adolescents with FEP. Mobile app–based interventions could increase quality of life and disease awareness, which improve adherence to treatment and reduce the frequency of relapses and rehospitalizations in adolescents with FEP. Methods: This article describes a mobile app treatment and the pilot trial protocol for patients with FEP. We will perform a single-blind randomized clinical trial (RCT) including patients with FEP aged 14–19 years recruited from Gregorio Marañón Hospital, Madrid, Spain. Patients will be randomly assigned to an intervention group, which will receive treatment as usual plus five modules of a psychological intervention through the mobile app (psychoeducation, recognition of symptoms and prevention of relapses, problem solving, mindfulness, and contact wall), or to a control group (standard care). The effectiveness of the intervention will be assessed by means of an extensive battery of clinical tests at baseline and at 3 months of follow-up. The primary outcome is reduction in psychotic and depressive symptoms; secondary outcomes comprise adherence, awareness, use of drugs, and quality of life. Data will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Mixed model repeated-measures analysis will be used to explore the following effect: group × time interaction between the control group and the intervention group for clinical and functional variables during the follow-up period. Discussion: This is an innovative study for the assessment of a psychological intervention through a mobile app for patients with FEP during the critical period. This pilot RCT is intended to be a precursor to larger studies, which in turn could facilitate dissemination of mobile app therapy for patients with FEP. Ethics and Dissemination: The local ethics committee approved the study protocol. All participants must sign the informed consent, to participate. After finalizing the study, the results will be published. Trial registration: NCT03161249. NCT clinicaltrials.gov. Date of registration in primary registry 02 May 2017. clinicaltrials.gov. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Cognitive reserve ( CR) is a concept that was postulated as a protective factor for some clinical symptoms after the observation that there is not a direct relationship between the degree of brain damage and its clinical manifestation. This study aimed to explore the association between CR and the main outcomes in bipolar disorder ( BD): cognitive functions, psychosocial functioning and perceived quality of life. Method A sample of 224 euthymic bipolar patients was assessed with a neuropsychological battery, the Functioning Assessment Short Test and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey ( SF-36). CR was calculated through three proxies: estimated premorbid Intelligent Quotient, educational level and occupational attainment. Relationships between CR and cognitive functions, psychosocial functioning and quality of life were assessed by multiple linear regression models. Results Higher CR was associated with better cognitive functioning ( P < 0.001 in processing speed, working memory, verbal and visual memory, and executive function; P = 0.026 in attention) and better psychosocial functioning ( P = 0.008). For quality of life, CR was positively associated with the physical component of the SF-36 ( P = 0.016) but negatively associated with the mental component ( P = 0.004). Conclusion The results suggest that CR may play an important role in the course and prognosis of bipolar patients and it should be considered in both clinical and research settings related to BD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The integrated treatment of first episode psychosis has been shown to improve functionality and negative symptoms in previous studies. In this paper, we describe a study of integrated treatment (individual psychoeducation complementary to pharmacotherapy) versus treatment as usual, comparing results at baseline with those at 6-month re-assessment (at the end of the study) for these patients, and online training of professionals to provide this complementary treatment, with the following objectives: 1) to compare the efficacy of individual psychoeducation as add-on treatment versus treatment as usual in improving psychotic and mood symptoms; 2) to compare adherence to medication, functioning, insight, social response, quality of life, and brain-derived neurotrophic factor, between both groups; and 3) to analyse the efficacy of online training of psychotherapists.Methods/design: This is a single-blind randomised clinical trial including patients with first episode psychosis from hospitals across Spain, randomly assigned to either a control group with pharmacotherapy and regular sessions with their psychiatrist (treatment as usual) or an intervention group with integrated care including treatment as usual plus a psychoeducational intervention (14 sessions). Training for professionals involved at each participating centre was provided by the coordinating centre (University Hospital of Álava) through video conferences. Patients are evaluated with an extensive battery of tests assessing clinical and sociodemographic characteristics (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorders, Strauss and Carpenter Prognostic Scale, Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, Morisky Green Adherence Scale, Functioning Assessment Short Test, World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument WHOQOL-BREF (an abbreviated version of the WHOQOL-100), and EuroQoL questionnaire), and brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels are measured in peripheral blood at baseline and at 6 months. The statistical analysis, including bivariate analysis, linear and logistic regression models, will be performed using SPSS.Discussion: This is an innovative study that includes the assessment of an integrated intervention for patients with first episode psychosis provided by professionals who are trained online, potentially making it possible to offer the intervention to more patients.Trial Registration: NCT01783457 clinical trials.gov. Date of registration in primary registry 23 January 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]