Abstract

Cognitive impairment is a core feature of schizophrenia, with negative consequences on functional outcomes. Although cognitive remediation (CR) is effective and mentioned in treatment guidance for schizophrenia, its active ingredients and ideal candidates are still debated. To provide a comprehensive update on CR effectiveness for cognition and functioning in schizophrenia and analyze the core ingredients of efficacy and role of patient characteristics. The reference list of the last comprehensive meta-analysis in 2011 was screened against eligibility criteria. Then, electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and PsycInfo) were systematically searched for articles published from January 2011 to February 2020. Reference lists of included articles and relevant reviews were hand searched, and Google Scholar was manually inspected. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials comparing CR with any other control condition in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (with an unrestricted clinical status). Screening was performed by at least 2 independent reviewers. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Study data were independently extracted and pooled using random-effect models. Cohen d was used to measure outcomes. Trial methodological quality was evaluated with the Clinical Trials Assessment Measure. Primary outcomes were changes in global cognition and overall functioning from baseline to after treatment, subsequently investigated through metaregressions, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses based on prespecified hypotheses, to identify potential moderators of response associated with treatment modality and patient characteristics. Of 1815 identified reports, 358 full texts were assessed and 194 reports on 130 studies were included. Based on 130 studies with 8851 participants, CR was effective on cognition (d, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.24-0.34]) and functioning (d, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.16-0.29]). An active and trained therapist (cognition: χ21, 4.14; P = .04; functioning: χ21, 4.26; P = .04), structured development of cognitive strategies (cognition: χ21, 9.34; P = .002; functioning: χ21, 8.12; P = .004), and integration with psychosocial rehabilitation (cognition: χ21, 5.66; functioning: χ21, 12.08) were crucial ingredients of efficacy. Patients with fewer years of education (global cognition: coefficient, -0.055 [95% CI, -0.103 to -0.006]; P = .03; global functioning: coefficient, -0.061 [95% CI, -0.112 to -0.011]; P = .02), lower premorbid IQ (global functioning: coefficient, -0.013 [-0.025 to -0.001]; P = .04), and higher baseline symptom severity (global cognition: coefficient, 0.006 [95% CI, 0.002 to 0.010]; P = .005) emerged as optimal candidates. These findings show that CR is an evidence-based intervention that should be included consistently into clinical guidelines for the treatment of individuals with schizophrenia and implemented more widely in clinical practice.

Highlights

  • Cognitive remediation produces meaningful benefits in cognition and functioning in this analysis, so implementation for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia should be recommended in clinical practice

  • The transfer of cognitive gains into real-world settings is better obtained by integrating CR with a structured psychiatric rehabilitation

  • The effectiveness of CR does not appear to be overly influenced by patient-associated characteristics, suggesting that it is a viable option for most individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia

Read more

Summary

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria The reference list of Wykes et al was screened against eligibility criteria. A systematic literature search was conducted on 3 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and PsycInfo) from January 2011 to February 2020, using the following terms: (“cognitive” or “cognit*”) AND (“training” or “remediation” or “rehabilitation” or “enhancement”) AND (“schizophrenia” or “psychosis”) AND (“random” or “randomized control trial” or “clinical trial”). Emerging meta-analyses or reviews and reference lists of included articles were hand searched, and Google Scholar was manually inspected. At least 2 independent reviewers (from a group of 3 authors: A.C., G.N., and C.A.) assessed the reports and extracted data; disagreements were resolved by a third author (among A.V., S.B., and G.D.). Articles in English published in peer-reviewed journals were considered

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call