Measuring Cognitive Abilities in the Wild: Validating a Population-Scale Game-Based Cognitive Assessment.

Rapid individual cognitive phenotyping holds the potential to revolutionize domains as wide-ranging as personalized learning, employment practices, and precision psychiatry. Going beyond limitations imposed by traditional lab-based experiments, new efforts have been underway toward greater ecological validity and participant diversity to capture the full range of individual differences in cognitive abilities and behaviors across the general population. Building on this, we developed Skill Lab, a novel game-based tool that simultaneously assesses a broad suite of cognitive abilities while providing an engaging narrative. Skill Lab consists of six mini-games as well as 14 established cognitive ability tasks. Using a popular citizen science platform (N = 10,725), we conducted a comprehensive validation in the wild of a game-based cognitive assessment suite. Based on the game and validation task data, we constructed reliable models to simultaneously predict eight cognitive abilities based on the users' in-game behavior. Follow-up validation tests revealed that the models can discriminate nuances contained within each separate cognitive ability as well as capture a shared main factor of generalized cognitive ability. Our game-based measures are five times faster to complete than the equivalent task-based measures and replicate previous findings on the decline of certain cognitive abilities with age in our large cross-sectional population sample (N = 6369). Taken together, our results demonstrate the feasibility of rapid in-the-wild systematic assessment of cognitive abilities as a promising first step toward population-scale benchmarking and individualized mental health diagnostics.

Economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial of blended cognitive-behavioral therapy for patients suffering from major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of blended cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) compared to standard CBT for adult patients suffering from major depressive disorder (MDD). DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis alongside the randomized controlled ENTER trial. SETTING: Center for Telepsychiatry, Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark, Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 76 patients suffering from MDD. INTERVENTIONS: The patients in the intervention group received blended CBT treatment comprising a combination of online modules and face-to-face consultations with a psychologist. The patients in the control group received standard CBT treatment, that is, solely face-to-face consultations with a psychologist. The treatment period was 12 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness was reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A micro-costing approach was applied to evaluate the savings derived. Changes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using the EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels questionnaire at the baseline and the six-month follow-up. RESULTS: Data for 74 patients were included in the primary analysis. The adjusted QALY difference between blended CBT and standard CBT was -0.0291 (95% CI: -0.0535 to -0.0047), and the adjusted difference in costs was -£226.32 (95% CI: -300.86 to -151.77). Blended CBT was estimated to have a 6.6% and 3.1% probability of being cost-effective based on thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000. CONCLUSION: Compared to standard CBT, blended CBT represents a cost-saving but also a loss in QALYs for patients suffering from MDD. However, results should be carefully interpreted, given the small sample size. Future research involving larger replication studies focusing on other aspects of blended CBT with more patient involvement is advised. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrial.gov: S-20150150.

Mobile Diary App Versus Paper-Based Diary Cards for Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder: Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of using a mobile diary app as an adjunct in dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) in patients with borderline personality disorder is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform an economic evaluation of a mobile diary app compared with paper-based diary cards in DBT treatment for patients with borderline personality disorder in a psychiatric outpatient facility. METHODS: This study was conducted alongside a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. The participants were recruited at 5 Danish psychiatric outpatient facilities and were randomized to register the emotions, urges, and skills used in a mobile diary app or on paper-based diary cards. The participants in both groups received DBT delivered by the therapists. A cost-consequence analysis with a time horizon of 12 months was performed. Consequences included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), depression severity, borderline severity, suicidal behavior, health care use, treatment compliance, and system usability. All relevant costs were included. Focus group interviews were conducted with patients, therapists, researchers, and industry representatives to discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of using a mobile diary app. RESULTS: A total of 78 participants were included in the analysis. An insignificantly higher number of participants in the paper group dropped out before the start of treatment (P=.07). Of those starting treatment, participants in the app group had an average of 37.1 (SE 27.55) more days of treatment and recorded an average of 3.16 (SE 5.10) more skills per week than participants in the paper group. Participants in both groups had a QALY gain and a decrease in depression severity, borderline severity, and suicidal behavior. Significant differences were found in favor of the paper group for both QALY gain (adjusted difference -0.054; SE 0.03) and reduction in depression severity (adjusted difference -1.11; SE 1.57). The between-group difference in total costs ranged from US $107.37 to US $322.10 per participant during the 12 months. The use of services in the health care sector was similar across both time points and groups (difference: psychiatric hospitalization <5 and <5; general practice -1.32; SE 3.68 and 2.02; SE 3.19). Overall, the patients showed high acceptability and considered the app as being easy to use. Therapists worried about potential negative influences on the therapist-patient interaction from new work tasks accompanying the introduction of the new technology but pointed at innovation potential from digital database registrations. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests both positive and negative consequences of mobile diary apps as adjuncts to DBT compared with paper diary cards. More research is needed to draw conclusions regarding its cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03191565; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03191565. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/17737.

Blended CBT versus face-to-face CBT: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Internet based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) has been demonstrated to be cost- and clinically effective. There is a need, however, for increased therapist contact for some patient groups. Combining iCBT with traditional face-to-face (ftf) consultations in a blended format (B-CBT) may produce a new treatment format with multiple benefits from both traditional CBT and iCBT such as individual adaptation, lower costs than traditional therapy, wide geographical and temporal availability, and possibly lower threshold to implementation. The primary aim of the present study is to compare directly the clinical effectiveness of B-CBT with face-to-face CBT for adult major depressive disorder. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a two arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing blended CBT for adult depression with treatment as usual (TAU). In the blended condition six sessions of ftf CBT is alternated with six to eight online modules (NoDep). TAU is defined as 12 sessions of ftf CBT. The primary outcome is symptomatic change of depressive symptoms on the patient-health questionnaire (PHQ-9). Additionally, the study will include an economic evaluation. All participants must be 18 years of age or older and meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders 4th edition. Participants are randomised on an individual level by a researcher not involved in the project. The primary outcome is analysed by regressing the three-month follow-up PHQ-9 data on the baseline PHQ-9 score and a treatment group indicator using ancova. A sample size of 130 in two balanced groups will yield a power of at least 80% to detect standardised mean differences above 0.5 on a normally distributed variable. DISCUSSION: This study design will compare B-CBT and ftf CBT in a concise and direct manner with only a minimal of the variance explained by differences in therapeutic content. On the other hand, while situated in routine care, ecological validity is somewhat compromised by the controlled manner in which the study is conducted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02796573 . Registered June 1st 2016. Currently recruiting participants.