A Randomized Control Trial of Cognitive Compensatory Training (CCT) and Computerized Interactive Remediation of Cognition-Training for Schizophrenia (CIRCuiTS).
cognitive compensation
cognitive rehabilitation
cognitive remediation
randomized controlled trial
schizophrenia
Journal
Frontiers in psychiatry
ISSN: 1664-0640
Titre abrégé: Front Psychiatry
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101545006
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
18
02
2022
accepted:
22
04
2022
entrez:
18
7
2022
pubmed:
19
7
2022
medline:
19
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Various modes of delivering cognitive remediation (CR) are effective, but there have been few head-to-head trials of different approaches. This trial aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of two different programmes, Cognitive Compensatory Training (CCT) and Computerized Interactive Remediation of Cognition-Training for Schizophrenia (CIRCuiTs). The study used a single-blind randomized, controlled trial to examine the efficacy and effectiveness of the two therapies. The study aimed to enroll 100 clinically stable patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years who had been diagnosed with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Participants were randomized to either the CCT or CIRCuiTs therapy groups. The primary outcome measures were neurocognition using the Brief Assessment of Cognition Scale (BACS) and the Subjective Scale to Investigate Cognition in Schizophrenia (SSTICS). The secondary measure was functional outcomes using the Social Functioning Scale (SFS). There was no group difference in any of the outcome measures post-intervention or at follow-up. Both groups had a small improvement on their SSTICS scores between baseline (M = 30.52 and SD = 14.61) and post-intervention (M = 23.96 and SD = 10.92). Verbal memory scores as measured by list learning improved for both groups between baseline ( This underpowered study found no difference in effect between the two approaches studied. If future studies confirm this finding, then it has implications for services where cost and lack of computer technology could pose a barrier in addressing the cognitive domain of schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The final sample size compromised the power of the study to conclusively determine a significant effect.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Various modes of delivering cognitive remediation (CR) are effective, but there have been few head-to-head trials of different approaches. This trial aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of two different programmes, Cognitive Compensatory Training (CCT) and Computerized Interactive Remediation of Cognition-Training for Schizophrenia (CIRCuiTs).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
The study used a single-blind randomized, controlled trial to examine the efficacy and effectiveness of the two therapies. The study aimed to enroll 100 clinically stable patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years who had been diagnosed with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Participants were randomized to either the CCT or CIRCuiTs therapy groups. The primary outcome measures were neurocognition using the Brief Assessment of Cognition Scale (BACS) and the Subjective Scale to Investigate Cognition in Schizophrenia (SSTICS). The secondary measure was functional outcomes using the Social Functioning Scale (SFS).
Results
UNASSIGNED
There was no group difference in any of the outcome measures post-intervention or at follow-up. Both groups had a small improvement on their SSTICS scores between baseline (M = 30.52 and SD = 14.61) and post-intervention (M = 23.96 and SD = 10.92). Verbal memory scores as measured by list learning improved for both groups between baseline (
Discussion
UNASSIGNED
This underpowered study found no difference in effect between the two approaches studied. If future studies confirm this finding, then it has implications for services where cost and lack of computer technology could pose a barrier in addressing the cognitive domain of schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The final sample size compromised the power of the study to conclusively determine a significant effect.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35845456
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.878429
pmc: PMC9283902
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
878429Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Dark, Gore-Jones, Newman, Wheeler, Demonte and Northwood.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
FD has received honorariums from Janssen, Lundbeck, and Seqirus for the delivery of lectures at clinician educational events. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016 May;50(5):410-72
pubmed: 27106681
J Clin Psychiatry. 2012 Sep;73(9):1212-9
pubmed: 22939029
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun 15;18(1):458
pubmed: 29907105
Br J Psychiatry. 1990 Dec;157:853-9
pubmed: 2289094
JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Aug 1;78(8):848-858
pubmed: 33877289
Schizophr Res Cogn. 2019 Jul 24;19:100157
pubmed: 31832341
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2015 Nov-Dec;30(6):391-401
pubmed: 25033034
Schizophr Res. 2008 Jul;102(1-3):108-15
pubmed: 18495435
Psychol Med. 2017 Nov;47(15):2720-2730
pubmed: 28866988
Am J Psychiatry. 2011 May;168(5):472-85
pubmed: 21406461
Am J Psychiatry. 2007 Dec;164(12):1791-802
pubmed: 18056233
Br J Clin Psychol. 2020 Sep;59(3):384-402
pubmed: 32515058
Am J Psychiatr Rehabil. 2008 Apr;11(2):144-163
pubmed: 19198664
Schizophr Bull. 2005 Oct;31(4):942-53
pubmed: 16120830
Compr Psychiatry. 2003 Jul-Aug;44(4):331-40
pubmed: 12923712
Neuropsychology. 2020 Jan;34(1):43-52
pubmed: 31414828
Schizophr Bull. 2009 Jul;35(4):798-806
pubmed: 18308717
Psychopharmacol Bull. 1988;24(1):122-4
pubmed: 3387516