Cochrane · systematic review · CD009533
Psychological interventions for psychosis in adolescents
Datta, SS, Daruvala, R, Kumar, A · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
SchizophreniaAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
42
current version
GRADE rated
22
No studies
20
Included studies
NR
No studies 20 · 47.6%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 19 · 45.2%Low 3 · 7.1%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
COGNITIVE REMEDIATION THERAPY (CRG) + TREATMENT‐AS‐USUAL (TAU) compared to TAU (all short‐term) for psychosis in adolescents
Population: Adolescents with psychosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Global state: Average endpoint score CGAS (high score = good) COGNITIVE REMEDIATION THERAPY (CRG) + TREATMENT‐AS‐USUAL (TAU) vs TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Mental state: Average endpoint score PANNS (high score = poor) COGNITIVE REMEDIATION THERAPY (CRG) + TREATMENT‐AS‐USUAL (TAU) vs TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Cognitive functioning: clinically important change Not attaining normal cognitive function (Memory Digit Span) COGNITIVE REMEDIATION THERAPY (CRG) + TREATMENT‐AS‐USUAL (TAU) vs TAU (all short‐term) | RR 0.58 [0.37, 0.89] | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Global functioning: Average endpoint VABS Score (high score = good) COGNITIVE REMEDIATION THERAPY (CRG) + TREATMENT‐AS‐USUAL (TAU) vs TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events: Clinically important effect COGNITIVE REMEDIATION THERAPY (CRG) + TREATMENT‐AS‐USUAL (TAU) vs TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Service use: Hospital admission for any reason COGNITIVE REMEDIATION THERAPY (CRG) + TREATMENT‐AS‐USUAL (TAU) vs TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Leaving the study early: For any reason COGNITIVE REMEDIATION THERAPY (CRG) + TREATMENT‐AS‐USUAL (TAU) vs TAU (all short‐term) | RR 0.93 [0.32, 2.71] | 2 studies · 91 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
GROUP PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPY (GPT) + TAU compared to TAU (all short‐term) for psychosis in adolescents
Population: Adolescents with psychosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Global state: Mean endpoint score (CGAS, high score = good) GROUP PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPY (GPT) + TAU vs TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 56 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mental State: Mean endpoint total score on PANSS (high score = poor) GROUP PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPY (GPT) + TAU vs TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 56 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Cognitive functioning: Attaining normal cognitive functioning ‐ Not reported GROUP PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPY (GPT) + TAU vs TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Global functioning: Not reported GROUP PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPY (GPT) + TAU vs TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events: Not reported GROUP PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPY (GPT) + TAU vs TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Service Use: Not reported GROUP PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPY (GPT) + TAU vs TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Leaving the study early: For any reason GROUP PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPY (GPT) + TAU vs TAU (all short‐term) | RR 0.43 [0.15, 1.28] | 1 study · 56 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY (SGT) + TAU compared to HANDICRAFT GROUP (HC) + TAU (all short‐term) for psychosis in adolescents
Population: Adolescents with psychosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Global State: Not reported STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY (SGT) + TAU vs HANDICRAFT GROUP (HC) + TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mental State: Mean endpoint total score on PANSS (high score = poor) STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY (SGT) + TAU vs HANDICRAFT GROUP (HC) + TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 48 participants | Very low |
Cognitive functioning: Attaining normal cognitive functioning ‐ Not reported STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY (SGT) + TAU vs HANDICRAFT GROUP (HC) + TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Global functioning: Not reported STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY (SGT) + TAU vs HANDICRAFT GROUP (HC) + TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events: Not reported STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY (SGT) + TAU vs HANDICRAFT GROUP (HC) + TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Service Utilisation: Not reported STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY (SGT) + TAU vs HANDICRAFT GROUP (HC) + TAU (all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Leaving the study early: For any reason STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY (SGT) + TAU vs HANDICRAFT GROUP (HC) + TAU (all short‐term) | RR 0.71 [0.25, 2] | 1 study · 60 participants | Low |
COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CRP) + PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL TREATMENT PROGRAMME (PTP) compared to PTP (all medium‐term) for psychosis in adolescents
Population: Adolescents with psychosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Global state: Average endpoint score GAS (high score = good) COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CRP) + PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL TREATMENT PROGRAMME (PTP) vs PTP (all medium‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mental state: Average endpoint score BPRS (high score = poor) COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CRP) + PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL TREATMENT PROGRAMME (PTP) vs PTP (all medium‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Cognitive functioning: Mean endpoint score SPAN‐12 (high score = good) COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CRP) + PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL TREATMENT PROGRAMME (PTP) vs PTP (all medium‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Global functioning: Clinically important change ‐ as defined by each of the studies COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CRP) + PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL TREATMENT PROGRAMME (PTP) vs PTP (all medium‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects: Clinically important adverse effect ‐ as defined by each of the studies COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CRP) + PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL TREATMENT PROGRAMME (PTP) vs PTP (all medium‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Service use: Hospital admission for any reason COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CRP) + PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL TREATMENT PROGRAMME (PTP) vs PTP (all medium‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Leaving the study early: For any reason COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CRP) + PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL TREATMENT PROGRAMME (PTP) vs PTP (all medium‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
COMPUTER‐ASSISTED COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CACR) compared to COMPUTER GAMES (CG, all short‐term) for psychosis in adolescents
Population: Adolescents with psychosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Global state: Average endpoint score HoNOSCA (high score = good) COMPUTER‐ASSISTED COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CACR) vs COMPUTER GAMES (CG, all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mental state: Average endpoint score PANNS (high score = poor) COMPUTER‐ASSISTED COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CACR) vs COMPUTER GAMES (CG, all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Cognitive functioning: Average endpoint score RBANS (high score = good) COMPUTER‐ASSISTED COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CACR) vs COMPUTER GAMES (CG, all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Global functioning: Average endpoint score SOFAS (high score = good) COMPUTER‐ASSISTED COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CACR) vs COMPUTER GAMES (CG, all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events: Clinically important change COMPUTER‐ASSISTED COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CACR) vs COMPUTER GAMES (CG, all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Service use: Hospital admission COMPUTER‐ASSISTED COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CACR) vs COMPUTER GAMES (CG, all short‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Leaving the study early: For any reason COMPUTER‐ASSISTED COGNITIVE REMEDIATION PROGRAMME (CACR) vs COMPUTER GAMES (CG, all short‐term) | RR 2.33 [0.27, 20.09] | 1 study · 32 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL (PE) + MULTIFAMILY TREATMENT (MFT) compared to NONSTRUCTURED GROUP THERAPY (NSGT, all long‐term) for psychosis in adolescents
Population: Adolescents with psychosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Global state: Mean endpoint score CGAS (high score = good) PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL (PE) + MULTIFAMILY TREATMENT (MFT) vs NONSTRUCTURED GROUP THERAPY (NSGT, all long‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 49 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mental State: Mean end point score PANSS ‐ (high score = good) PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL (PE) + MULTIFAMILY TREATMENT (MFT) vs NONSTRUCTURED GROUP THERAPY (NSGT, all long‐term) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 49 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Cognitive functioning: Attaining normal cognitive functioning ‐ Not reported PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL (PE) + MULTIFAMILY TREATMENT (MFT) vs NONSTRUCTURED GROUP THERAPY (NSGT, all long‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Global functioning: Not reported PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL (PE) + MULTIFAMILY TREATMENT (MFT) vs NONSTRUCTURED GROUP THERAPY (NSGT, all long‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events: Not reported PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL (PE) + MULTIFAMILY TREATMENT (MFT) vs NONSTRUCTURED GROUP THERAPY (NSGT, all long‐term) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Service use: Number of participants needing admission PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL (PE) + MULTIFAMILY TREATMENT (MFT) vs NONSTRUCTURED GROUP THERAPY (NSGT, all long‐term) | RR 0.84 [0.36, 1.96] | 1 study · 49 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Leaving the study early: For any reason PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL (PE) + MULTIFAMILY TREATMENT (MFT) vs NONSTRUCTURED GROUP THERAPY (NSGT, all long‐term) | RR 0.52 [0.1, 2.6] | 1 study · 55 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |