Impact of cognitive remediation on the prediction of employment outcomes in severe mental illness

Thinking About the Future of Cognitive Remediation Therapy Revisited: What Is Left to Solve Before Patients Have Access?

In our previous paper on the Future of Cognitive Remediation published more than 10 years ago, we envisaged an imminent and wide implementation of cognitive remediation therapies into mental health services. This optimism was misplaced. Despite evidence of the benefits, costs, and savings of this intervention, access is still sparse. The therapy has made its way into some treatment guidance, but these documents weight the same evidence very differently, causing confusion, and do not consider barriers to implementation. This paper revisits our previous agenda and describes how some challenges were overcome but some remain. The scientific community, with its commitment to Open Science, has produced promising sets of empirical data to explore the mechanisms of treatment action. This same community needs to understand the specific and nonspecific effects of cognitive remediation if we are to provide a formulation-based approach that can be widely implemented. In the last 10 years we have learned that cognitive remediation is not "brain training" but is a holistic therapy that involves an active therapist providing motivation support, and who helps to mitigate the impact of cognitive difficulties through metacognition to develop awareness of cognitive approaches to problems. We conclude that, of course, more research is needed but, in addition and perhaps more importantly at this stage, we need more public and health professionals' understanding of the benefits of this therapy to inform and include this approach as part of treatment regimens.

Eye movements as predictor of cognitive improvement after cognitive remediation therapy in patients with schizophrenia

Aim

Baseline cognitive functions of patients predicted the efficacy of cognitive remediation therapy (CRT), but results are mixed. Eye movement is a more objective and advanced assessment of cognitive functions than neuropsychological testing. We aimed to investigate the applicability of eye movements in predicting cognitive improvement after patients with schizophrenia were treated with CRT.

Methods

We recruited 79 patients with schizophrenia to complete 8 weeks of CRT and assessed their cognitive improvement outcomes. Eye movements were assessed by prosaccades, antisaccades, and free-viewing tasks at baseline, and neuropsychological tests in four cognitive domains were assessed before and after treatment to calculate treatment outcomes. Predictors of demographic information, clinical characteristics, and eye movement measures at baseline on cognitive improvement outcomes were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. We further compared the predictive performance between eye movement measurements and neuropsychological test regarding the effect of CRT on cognitive improvement, and explored factors that could be affect the treatment outcomes in different cognitive domains.

Results

As operationally defined, 33 patients showed improved in cognition (improved group) and 46 patients did not (non-improved group) after CRT. Patients with schizophrenia being employed, lower directional error rate in antisaccade task, and lower the gap effect (i.e., the difference in saccadic latency between the gap condition and overlap condition) in prosaccade task at baseline predicted cognitive improvement in CRT. However, performance in the free-viewing task not associated with cognitive improvement in patients in CRT. Our results show that eye-movement prediction model predicted the effect of CRT on cognitive improvement in patients with schizophrenia better than neuropsychological prediction model in CRT. In addition, baseline eye-movements, cognitive reserve, antipsychotic medication dose, anticholinergic cognitive burden change, and number of training sessions were associated with improvements in four cognitive domains.

Conclusion

Eye movements as a non-invasiveness, objective, and sensitive method of evaluating cognitive function, and combined saccadic measurements in pro- and anti-saccades tasks could be more beneficial than free-viewing task in predicting the effect of CRT on cognitive improvement in patients with schizophrenia.

Occupational evaluation of community-based psychiatric rehabilitation outcomes in individuals with severe mental illnesses: A ten-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of research on the effect of community-based psychiatric rehabilitation programs (CBPRs) in individuals with severe mental illness. This research used data from a retrospective study to examine the effect of a CBPR in a community rehabilitation center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical outcomes measures from a retrospective study were collected. Outcome measures were the Allen Cognitive Level Screen assessment, Purdue Pegboard Test, Chu's Attention Test, and Activities of Daily Living Rating Scale-III (ADLRS-III) before and immediately after 12 months of intervention.

RESULTS

The 141 participants with mental illness were an average age of 35.29 years (SD = 8.75). The retrospective review of medical records showed 46 people dropped out within 12 months, and 95 people continued to participate in the rehabilitation program for 1 year. After 1 year of community rehabilitation, there was a trend for the participants who completed the intervention to improve on the ADLRS-III, Purdue Pegboard Test, and Chu's Attention Test. Participants who performed better on the occupational assessment were more likely to transit to the employment status.

CONCLUSION

This study found the benefits of CBPR in work-related intervention for people with mental illness. Occupational assessments are relevant for studying changes in functional outcomes in people with mental illness receiving community-based rehabilitation.

A randomized controlled trial of Goal Management Training for executive functioning in schizophrenia spectrum disorders or psychosis risk syndromes

BACKGROUND

Executive functioning is essential to daily life and severely impaired in schizophrenia and psychosis risk syndromes. Goal Management Training (GMT) is a theoretically founded, empirically supported, metacognitive strategy training program designed to improve executive functioning.

METHODS

A randomized controlled parallel group trial compared GMT with treatment as usual among 81 participants (GMT, n = 39 versus Wait List Controls, n = 42) recruited from an early intervention for psychosis setting. Computer generated random allocation was performed by someone independent from the study team and raters post-intervention were unaware of allocation. The primary objective was to assess the impact of GMT administered in small groups for 5 weeks on executive functioning. The secondary objective was to explore the potential of the intervention in influencing daily life functioning and clinical symptoms.

RESULTS

GMT improved self-reported executive functioning, measured with the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult version (BRIEF-A), significantly more than treatment as usual. A linear mixed model for repeated measures, including all partial data according to the principle of intention to treat, showed a significant group x time interaction effect assessed immediately after intervention (post-test) and 6 months after intervention (follow-up), F = 8.40, p .005, r .37. Improvement occurred in both groups in objective executive functioning as measured by neuropsychological tests, functional capacity, daily life functioning and symptoms of psychosis rated by clinicians. Self-reported clinical symptoms measured with the Symptoms Check List (SCL-10) improved significantly more after GMT than after treatment as usual, F = 5.78, p .019, r .29. Two participants withdrew due to strenuous testing and one due to adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

GMT had clinically reliable and lasting effects on subjective executive function. The intervention is a valuable addition to available treatment with considerable gains at low cost.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT03048695 09/02/2017.