T207. A REVIEW OF PREDICTORS OF RESPONSIVENESS TO CBT FOR PSYCHOSIS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Pharmacological and psychological intervention combined are proved to be more effective for treating psychosis than pharmacological treatment alone. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for psychosis (CBTp) has been empirically supported as conjoint treatment providing a significant improvement in positive and negatives symptoms, and functional outcomes for psychosis. However, rates of patient discontinuation in CBTp and occasional lack of improvement in symptoms show it is important to refine the identification of the individual characteristics related to better response to CBTp. This literature review aims to accomplish a comprehensive analysis of the evidence-based studies that have searched predictors in the last decades, focusing on individual factors that directly predicts responsiveness to CBTp, rather than therapist or treatment factors. The scope of knowledge gathered here intends to guide practical application of CBTp to people with psychosis that can benefit more from this intervention. Adaptations to improve the effectiveness of CBTp and gaps to be addressed in further research are also considered. Thirty (30) studies (18 RCT) were included to determine which characteristics are relevant for a distinctive response to CBTp in people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. The word “predictor” was used to discriminate pertinent studies. Articles were included if they reported in a population within a Psychosis Spectrum Disorder; reported on CBT or derived intervention; reported on individual predictors of outcome in CBT or derived therapy. Articles that reported on a high-risk psychosis population or on comorbidities with psychosis; reported non-individual predictors; were case studies or literature reviews; had a small sample; and had mixed interventions and did not report results specific to CBT were not included. Studies have shown divergences in methodology, focus on different domains and time-points of disorders outcome and great heterogeneity in results. There is strong evidence that greater clinical and cognitive insight, cognitive flexibility, greater positive symptom severity and less pronounced negative symptoms at baseline, shorter duration of psychosis, a greater number of hospitalization in the previous five years and pre-therapy coping styles can predict better outcome in CBTp, although their significance has varied between studies. While impairment in verbal memory was related to a shortage of improvement in symptoms and a greater likelihood to abandon of treatment before completion, most studies did not find neurocognitive functioning to be a predictor of outcome in CBTp. Further investigation is needed to determine the extent and validity of these predictors in different populations within the scope of psychosis. Professionals can benefit from the gathered knowledge, using these findings to better target CBTp and to focus early stages of intervention on developing patient’s abilities such as cognitive flexibility and insight, working memory, coping skills and clinical awareness in order to improve their receptiveness to therapy and successful outcome. Future research should aim to replicate findings with larger and more diagnosis-comprehensive samples to enable generalization of the present results. Aspects such as personality traits, metacognition and sociodemographic characteristics require more thorough investigation to confirm their predictive value before being taken into consideration when selecting patient suitability to CBTp and similar interventions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,015 | 0,016 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».