Trial reportEarly intervention in psychiatry2025
Feasibility and Acceptability of Providing Cognitive Remediation in a Large USA System of Coordinated Specialty Care for Early Psychosis.
Trial report in Early intervention in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Living with psychosis and cognitive impairment: a qualitative study.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Sensitivity and Specificity of Cognitive Health Screening in a Coordinated Specialty Care Setting.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMultinational treatment guidelines support providing cognitive remediation to people recently diagnosed with schizophrenia, but the feasibility of implementing the treatment on a large scale is less well understood.
methodsThis study took place between 2019 and 2023 at 14 clinics within a large network of programs providing early intervention services to people aged 16-30 experiencing nonaffective psychosis. Clinics were randomly assigned to deliver cognitive remediation as twice-weekly clinician-led groups (N = 5), cognitive remediation as once-weekly clinician-led groups with homework (N = 6), or treatment as usual (N = 3). All clinics screened for cognitive health need to guide treatment planning. Clinical teams (N = 11) received training to provide cognitive remediation. Program evaluation data were analysed for feasibility and acceptability.
resultsScreening for cognitive health needs was completed on 77% of the 1193 participants enrolled at the 11 clinics offering cognitive remediation. Clinicians identified cognitive difficulties in 53.9% (n = 496) of screened participants and referred 27% (n = 134) of these participants to cognitive remediation. Of referred participants, 77.6% (n = 104) initiated treatment, and n = 41 completed the treatment. The rate of referral was nearly double, and treatment initiation was significantly higher at programs delivering once-weekly (84.3%) than twice-weekly (64.4%) treatment but the difference in the rate of treatment completion was statistically nonsignificant. Satisfaction among treatment completers was high.
conclusionsReferrals to cognitive remediation required systemic support of a feasible cognitive health screening process. About a quarter of people with clinician-identified cognitive health needs were referred to cognitive remediation. Feasibility data suggest a flexible model of treatment delivery may facilitate implementation in this service setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.