A randomised controlled trial of psychotherapy and cognitive remediation to target cognition in mood disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of a treatment package combining Interpersonal and Social Rhythm Therapy (IPSRT) and cognitive remediation (CR), vs IPSRT alone, on cognition, functioning, and mood disturbance outcomes in mood disorders. METHODS: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial in adults with bipolar disorder (BD) or major depressive disorder (MDD), recently discharged from mental health services in Christchurch, New Zealand, with subjective cognitive difficulties. Individuals were randomised to a 12-month course of IPSRT with CR (IPSRT-CR), or without CR (IPSRT). In IPSRT-CR, CR was incorporated into therapy sessions from approximately session 5 and continued for 12 sessions. The primary outcome was change in Global Cognition (baseline to 12 months). RESULTS: Sixty-eight individuals (BD n = 26, MDD n = 42; full/partial remission n = 39) were randomised to receive IPSRT-CR or IPSRT (both n = 34). Across treatment arms, individuals received an average of 23 IPSRT sessions. Change in Global Cognition did not differ between arms from baseline to treatment-end (12 months). Psychosocial functioning and longitudinal depression symptoms improved significantly more in the IPSRT compared with IPSRT-CR arm over 12 months, and all measures of functioning and mood symptoms showed moderate effect size differences favouring IPSRT (0.41-0.60). At 18 months, small to moderate, non-significant benefits (0.26-0.47) of IPSRT vs IPSRT-CR were found on functioning and mood outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Combining two psychological therapies to target symptomatic and cognitive/functional recovery may reduce the effect of IPSRT, which has implications for treatment planning in clinical practice and for CR trials in mood disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".