Psychosocial interventions for people with dementia: a synthesis of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Over the last 10 years there has been a multitude of studies of psychosocial interventions for people with dementia. However, clinical services face a dilemma about which intervention should be introduced into clinical practice because of the inconsistency in some of the findings between different studies and the differences in the study qualities and trustworthiness of evidence. There was a need to provide a comprehensive summary of the best evidence to illustrate what works. METHODS: A review of the systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions in dementia published between January 2010 and February 2016 was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-two reviews (8 physical, 7 cognitive, 1 physical/cognitive and 6 other psychosocial interventions) with a total of 197 unique studies met the inclusion criteria. Both medium to longer-term multi-component exercise of moderate to high intensity, and, group cognitive stimulation consistently show benefits. There is not sufficient evidence to determine whether psychological or social interventions might improve either mood or behaviour due to the heterogeneity of the studies and interventions included in the reviews. CONCLUSION: There is good evidence that multi-component exercise with sufficient intensity improves global physical and cognitive functions and activities of daily living skills. There is also good evidence that group-based cognitive stimulation improves cognitive functions, social interaction and quality of life. This synthesis also highlights the potential importance of group activities to improve social integration for people with dementia. Future research should investigate longer-term specific outcomes, consider the severity and types of dementia, and investigate mechanisms of change

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 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.</p

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.</p

MOESM1 of Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Additional file 1. VITA SPIRIT 2013 Checklist: recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents

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.</p

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.</p