Understanding the Mechanisms of Cognitive Remediation on Recovery in People With Early Psychosis: A Mediation and Moderation Analysis.

BACKGROUND: To provide precision cognitive remediation therapy (CR) for schizophrenia, we need to understand whether the mechanism for improved functioning is via cognition improvements. This mechanism has not been rigorously tested for potential moderator effects. STUDY DESIGN: We used data (n = 377) from a randomized controlled trial using CIRCuiTS, a therapist-supported CR, with participants from first-episode psychosis services. We applied structured equation modeling to test whether: (1) CR hours explain the goal attainment functional outcome (GAS) at posttreatment, (2) global cognitive improvement mediates GAS, and if (3) total symptoms moderate the CR hours to cognitive improvement pathway, and/or negative symptoms moderate the cognition to functioning pathway, testing moderator effects via the mediator or directly on CR hours to functioning path. STUDY RESULTS: CR produced significant functioning benefit for each therapy hour (Coeff = 0.203, 95% CI 0.101-0.304, P < .001). The mediated path from CR hours to cognition and cognition to functioning was small and nonsignificant (Coeff = 0.014, 95% CI = -0.010, 0.037, P = .256). Total symptoms did not moderate the path to cognition (P = .211) or the direct path to outcome (P = .896). However, negative symptoms significantly moderated the effect of cognitive improvements on functioning (P = .015) with high negative symptoms reducing the functional gains of improved cognition. CONCLUSIONS: Although cognitive improvements were correlated with functioning benefit, they did not fully explain the positive effect of increased therapy hours on functioning, suggesting additional CR factors also contribute to therapy benefit. Negative symptoms interfere with the translation of cognitive improvements into functional gains so need consideration.

Evaluating the acceptability of remote cognitive remediation from the perspective of psychosis service users.

OBJECTIVES: Cognitive remediation (CR) can reduce the cognitive difficulties experienced by people with psychosis. Adapting CR to be delivered remotely provides new opportunities for extending its use. However, doing so requires further evaluation of its acceptability from service users' views. We evaluate the acceptability of therapist-supported remote CR from the perspectives of service users using participatory service user-centred methods. METHOD: After receiving 12 weeks of therapist-supported remote CR, service users were interviewed by a service user researcher following a semi-structured 18-question interview guide. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis with themes and codes further validated by a Lived Experience Advisory Panel and member checking. RESULTS: The study recruited 26 participants, almost all of whom reported high acceptability of remote CR, and some suggested improvements. Four themes emerged: (1) perceived treatment benefits, (2) remote versus in-person therapy, (3) the therapist's role, and (4) how it could be better. CONCLUSIONS: This study used comprehensive service user involvement methods. For some participants, technology use remained a challenge and addressing these difficulties detracted from the therapy experience. These outcomes align with existing research on remote therapy, suggesting that remote CR can expand choice and improve access to treatment for psychosis service users once barriers are addressed. Future use of remote CR should consider technology training and equipment provision to facilitate therapy for service users and therapists.

Satisfaction with cognitive remediation therapy: its effects on implementation and outcomes using the cognitive remediation satisfaction scale.

Cognitive Remediation (CR) improves cognition and functioning but is implemented in a variety of ways (independent, group and one-to-one). There is no information on whether service users find these implementation methods acceptable or if their satisfaction influences CR outcomes. We used mixed participatory methods, including focus groups, to co-develop a CR satisfaction scale. This was refined using three psychometric criteria (Cronbach's alpha, item discrimination, test-retest agreement) to select items. Factor analysis explored potential substructures. The refined measure was used in structural equation joint modelling to evaluate whether satisfaction with CR is affected by implementation method and treatment engagement or influences recovery outcome, using data from a randomised controlled trial. Four themes (therapy hours, therapist, treatment effects, computer use) generated a 31-item Cognitive Remediation Satisfaction scale (CRS) that reduced to 18 Likert items, 2 binary and 2 open-ended questions following psychometric assessment. CRS had good internal consistency (Alpha = 0.814), test-retest reliability (r= 0.763), and concurrent validity using the Working Alliance Inventory (r = 0.56). A 2-factor solution divided items into therapy engagement and therapy effects. Satisfaction was not related to implementation method but was significantly associated with CR engagement. Therapy hours were significantly associated with recovery, but there was no direct effect of satisfaction on outcome. Although satisfaction is important to therapy engagement, it has no direct effect on outcome. CR therapy hours directly affect outcome irrespective of which implementation model is used, so measuring satisfaction early might help to identify those who are likely to disengage. The study has mixed methods design.

Service user involvement in mental health service commissioning, development and delivery: A systematic review of service level outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Service user involvement is increasingly considered essential in mental health service development and delivery. However, the impact of this involvement on services is not well documented. We aimed to understand how user involvement shapes service commissioning, development and delivery, and if/how this leads to improved service-level outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE databases) was undertaken in June and November 2022 for studies that incorporated patient involvement in service development, and reported service-level outcomes. Included studies were synthesised into a logic model based on inputs (method of involvement), activities (changes to service) and outputs (indicators of improvement). PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines were followed when conducting this review. RESULTS: From 10,901 records identified, nine studies were included, of which six were judged to have used co-production or co-design approaches. Included studies described service user involvement ranging from consultation to co-production. We identified a range of outputs associated with service user involvement in service planning and delivery, and reported these in the form of a logic model. These service-level outputs included improved treatment accessibility, increased referrals and greater service user satisfaction. Longer-term outcomes were rarely reported and hence it was difficult to establish whether outputs are sustained. CONCLUSION: More extensive forms of involvement, namely, co-design and co-production, were associated with more positive and substantial outputs in regard to service effectiveness than more limited involvement methods. However, lived experience contributions highlighted service perception outputs may be valued more highly by service users than professionals and therefore should be considered equally important when evaluating service user involvement. Although evidence of longer term outcomes was scarce, meaningful involvement of service users in service planning and delivery appeared to improve the quality of mental health services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of a lived experience advisory panel contributed to the review findings, which were co-authored by a peer researcher. Review findings were also presented to stakeholders including service users and mental health professionals.

Cognitive Remediation Works But How Should We Provide It? An Adaptive Randomized Controlled Trial of Delivery Methods Using a Patient Nominated Recovery Outcome in First-Episode Participants.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Cognitive remediation (CR) benefits cognition and functioning in psychosis but we do not know the optimal level of therapist contact, so we evaluated the potential benefits of different CR modes. STUDY DESIGN: A multi-arm, multi-center, single-blinded, adaptive trial of therapist-supported CR. Participants from 11 NHS early intervention psychosis services were independently randomized to Independent, Group, One-to-One, or Treatment-as-usual (TAU). The primary outcome was functional recovery (Goal Attainment Scale [GAS]) at 15-weeks post randomization. Independent and TAU arms were closed after an interim analysis, and three informative contrasts tested (Group vs One-to-One, Independent vs TAU, Group + One-to-One vs TAU). Health economic analyses considered the cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). All analyses used intention-to-treat principles. STUDY RESULTS: We analyzed 377 participants (65 Independent, 134 Group, 112 One-to-One, 66 TAU). GAS did not differ for Group vs One-to-One: Cohen's d: 0.07, -0.25 to 0.40 95% CI, P = .655; Independent vs TAU: Cohen's d: 0.07, -0.41 to 0.55 95% CI, P = .777. GAS and the cognitive score improved for Group + One-to-One vs TAU favoring CR (GAS: Cohen's d: 0.57, 0.19-0.96 95% CI, P = .003; Cognitive score: Cohens d: 0.28, 0.07-0.48 95% CI, P = .008). The QALY costs were £4306 for Group vs TAU and £3170 for One-to-One vs TAU. Adverse events did not differ between treatment methods and no serious adverse events were related to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both active therapist methods provided cost-effective treatment benefiting functional recovery in early psychosis and should be adopted within services. Some individuals benefited more than others so needs further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14678860 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14678860Now closed.