Search

Objective: We investigated whether physical exercise interventions improve cognitive functioning in nondementia populations. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of meta-analyses including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers completed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials. Study characteristics, effect size data, and heterogeneity estimates were extracted and presented in tabular form. Methodological quality was assessed by 2 reviewers using the AMSTAR-2 checklist. The validity of results was considered based on AMSTAR-2 scores and study characteristics. Results: We included 11 meta-analyses: 6 focused on disease-free older adults and 5 on mild cognitive impairment (MCI) excluding dementia. These meta-analyses summarized 97 unique RCTs. Methodological quality ranged from critically low to high. For overall cognitive functioning, which was the outcome of 6 meta-analyses, 1 showed improvement due to exercise interventions in disease-free older adults (g = 0.29, P <.01), while 2 reported nonsignificant effects. In patients with MCI, 3 meta-analyses reported significant benefits of exercise interventions on overall cognitive functioning (g = 0.25-0.57, P <.01). For cognitive domains such as attention and memory, there was limited evidence of beneficial effects of exercise demonstrated in either disease-free or MCI samples. Conclusions: Exercise may improve overall cognitive functioning in disease-free older adults, but there is too little high-quality evidence to conclude whether this is achieved through improvement in any of the specific cognitive domains assessed. There is clearer evidence that exercise may improve cognitive functioning in MCI, but again there is limited evidence across most cognitive domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-based psychological interventions to support treatment decision-making capacity (capacity) in psychosis do not currently exist. This study sought to establish whether reducing the extent to which this group form conclusions based on limited evidence, also known as the "jumping-to-conclusions" (JTC) bias, could improve capacity., Methods: In a randomized controlled open trial, 37 patients aged 16-65 years diagnosed with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-session intervention designed to reduce the JTC bias (MCT-JTC; adapted from Metacognitive Training [MCT]) or an attention control (AC) condition designed to control for therapist attention, duration, modality, and face validity. Primary outcomes were treatment decision-making capacity measured by the MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) and the jumping-to-conclusions reasoning bias measured by draws to decision on the beads task, each of which were administered by the psychologist delivering the intervention., Results: Those receiving MCT-JTC had large improvements in overall capacity (d = 0.96, P < .05) and appreciation (d = 0.87, P < .05) compared to those receiving AC. Reduction in JTC mediated a large proportion of the effect of group allocation on understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and overall MacCAT-T scores., Conclusion: This is the first experimental investigation of the effect of a psychological intervention on treatment decision-making capacity in psychosis. It provides early evidence that reducing the JTC bias is associated with large and rapid improvements in capacity. Due to limited resources, assessments were administered by the researchers delivering the intervention. Results should therefore be considered preliminary and a larger, definitive trial addressing methodological limitations is warranted., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Evidence suggests that social skills training (SST) is an efficacious intervention for negative symptoms in psychosis, whereas evidence of efficacy in other psychosis symptom domains is limited. The current article reports a comprehensive meta-analytic review of the evidence for SST across relevant outcome measures, control comparisons, and follow-up assessments. The secondary aim of this study was to identify and investigate the efficacy of SST subtypes., Methods: A systematic literature search identified 27 randomized controlled trials including N = 1437 participants. Trials assessing SST against active controls, treatment-as-usual (TAU), and waiting list control were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. A series of 70 meta-analytic comparisons provided effect sizes in Hedges' g. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed., Results: SST demonstrated superiority over TAU (g = 0.3), active controls (g = 0.2-0.3), and comparators pooled (g = 0.2-0.3) for negative symptoms, and over TAU (g = 0.4) and comparators pooled (g = 0.3) for general psychopathology. Superiority was indicated in a proportion of comparisons for all symptoms pooled and social outcome measures. SST subtype comparisons were underpowered, although social-cognitive approaches demonstrated superiority vs comparators pooled. SST treatment effects were maintained at proportion of follow-up comparisons., Conclusions: SST demonstrates a magnitude of effect for negative symptoms similar to those commonly reported for cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for positive symptoms, although unlike CBT, SST is not routinely recommended in treatment guidelines for psychological intervention. SST may have potential for wider implementation. Further stringent effectiveness research alongside wider pilot implementation of SST in community mental health teams is warranted.