Abstract

1. Background

Cognitive impairment is a common symptom in psychotic disorders (Keefe and Fenton, 2007), seen across most domains including attention, processing speed, working memory, verbal learning and memory, executive functioning, and social cognition (Bowie and Harvey, 2006). Most people with schizophrenia demonstrate lower cognitive functioning than their expected level if they had not developed the illness (Keefe and Fenton, 2007). These cognitive deficits are already established in recent-onset psychosis (ROP) (Uren et al., 2017; Mesholam-Gately et al., 2009; Reichenberg et al., 2010; Mollon et al., 2018). Cognitive impairments interfere with functional recovery (Allott et al., 2013; Cowman et al., 2021). Individuals with psychosis report cognitive impairments are distressing and negatively impact self-confidence, vocational functioning and daily life activities (Wright et al., 2019).

Early interventions for psychosis are both clinically-effective (Correll et al., 2018) and cost-effective (Aceituno et al., 2019) in reducing the burden associated with psychosis. However, current treatment options have limitations in terms of cognitive outcomes. First, on average, antipsychotics are associated with negligible benefits for cognition (Karson et al., 2016), and may in fact adversely affect cognitive function (MacKenzie et al., 2018). Second, low engagement levels and non-adherence are a long-standing challenge in ROP treatment (Casey et al., 2016). Technological advancement brings new possibilities for research and treatment (Rus-Calafell and Schneider, 2020) that can address these challenges. The current perspective examines how digital technology could be used to address cognitive impairment and functional recovery in ROP.

2. Digital interventions in mental health treatment

Digital interventions involve the use of technologies such as stand-alone computer programs, internet delivered programs, smartphone apps or virtual reality (VR) to deliver mental health treatment (Torous et al., 2021). The increasingly wide-spread availability of digital technologies and unique capabilities for providing accessible support in daily life make them well suited to support existing treatment models to address cognitive impairment (Table 1). Providing continuous access to treatment in daily life ensures support is available on demand within the everyday contexts where it is needed. Delivering interventions such as cognitive remediation via technology can address limitations in the availability of evidence-based treatment for ROP (Wykes, 2018). Real-world learning can occur through delivering interventions in daily life using smartphone apps, or within simulated virtual environments in the case of VR (Bell et al., 2020a). Further, the use of technologies to support treatment may hold greater appeal for young people (Hollis et al., 2017; Valentine et al., 2020), for whom traditional treatments tend to lack engagement (Harpaz-Rotem et al., 2004). The generation born after 1990 can be seen as digital natives who consume digital information and stimuli quickly and comfortably through digital devices and platforms (Prensky, 2001).

3. Digital interventions for cognitive impairment in recent-onset psychosis

Despite the potential of digital interventions for enhancing cognition in ROP, few studies have been conducted. To our knowledge, there are no systematic reviews or meta-analyses that specifically examine cognitive enhancement with digital interventions in ROP or persisting psychosis populations. However, broader reviews of treatments targeting cognitive impairment in these populations have included various interventions delivered via technology (Glenthoj et al., 2017; Revell et al., 2015), and some individual trials have been conducted that provide early insights.

4. Online and internet-based technologies

The authors believe the unique characteristics of the technology should be considered when developing interventions for current treatment challenges to ensure added value over digitalization only. While the first three modalities described in Table 1 are mostly hardware related, the forth is software related. With continuous access to online services becoming more stable and readily available, like the internet and GPS tracking, so do new software possibilities. Online-software provides additional opportunities above offline-software. For example, an app sending supportive texts or helpful reminders based on GPS location, or a remote therapist guided VR exposure at home for people too afraid to leave their house or living in remote areas. There is also the possibility for real-time therapy in a completely virtual environment. This area is under-explored for treating cognitive impairments in ROP.

5. Challenges to progress or implementation of digital interventions

Several acknowledged challenges in the digital mental health field generally also affect the application of digital technologies in ROP. These include problems with sustained engagement, clinical integration, and lack of regulation and variable quality in the commercial marketplace. These issues must be addressed to advance the evidence base and to support implementation.

Poor long-term engagement with digital interventions is a well-recognized barrier to effectiveness and successful implementation (Torous et al., 2018). Underlying themes suggest these barriers apply when digital interventions are not designed with service users in mind, do not solve problems users care most about, and when are user concerns about privacy and trustworthiness. Digital interventions will need to match user expectations and standards for implementation to happen.

Motivation difficulties, as well as over-exposure to digital products in youth populations, may make this issue particularly challenging for young people with ROP (Bell and Alvarez-Jimenez, 2019). Research suggests that the best solutions for overcoming these issues include: 1) involving human support, such as peer support or coaching to enhance engagement (Biagianti et al., 2018), or ‘blending’ digital interventions with standard care (Bell et al., 2020b); and 2) working more closely with end users, using participatory design methods, and industry partners, to design more engaging, compelling and purpose-built digital interventions (Liverpool et al., 2020). Recent evidence indicates that by combining human and peer support it is feasible to engage young people with psychosis for sustained periods of time. For example, the Horyzons study, an RCT evaluating a moderated online social therapy platform integrating peer support and moderation, expert clinician and vocational support demonstrated that almost 50% of young people actively engaged with the platform for ≥9 months (Alvarez-Jimenez et al., 2021). The use of elements of video game design in non-game contexts like digital health interventions also seeks to prolong engagement. While this area is still developing, emerging studies are applying elements of gamification to improve cognitive function in psychosis (Amado et al., 2016; Fox and Barnes, 2016).

Another barrier to the wide-spread use of digital interventions for cognitive recovery concerns the complexity of integrating digital interventions within healthcare service contexts. Staff and service user attitudes, organizational readiness, and technology ‘fit’ within existing service systems, are all factors known to influence the success of implementation within routine care (Aref-Adib et al., 2019; Camacho and Torous, 2021). While young service users are digital natives, many current mental healthcare staff may be less digitally ‘savvy’ and accept and navigate technology with more difficulties (Prensky, 2001). Proposed solutions include: 1) designing digital interventions for the implementation context and developing the service model and implementation plan alongside the technology (Mohr et al., 2017); 2) developing digital interventions in conjunction with end-users harnessing user-centered design approaches, to ensure the product matches user expectations and standards; 3) conducting trials within the implementation context to ensure findings are readily transferable and generalizable; 4) drawing on knowledge from the field of implementation science to guide an understanding of the unique barriers and enablers of implementation in a specific context (Damschroder et al., 2009); 5) ensuring technologies are flexible and adaptable to the changing implementation context over time; and 6) staff training and support to shift attitudes and build knowledge on the use of technology to support service delivery.

Costs of technology can be considered another barrier. A Cost Utility evaluation of cognition-enhancing interventions for individuals with ROP showed computerized cognitive remediation did not appear to be a cost-effective addition to coordinated specialty care services (Breitborde et al., 2021). Overall, costs are coming down, however. From our personal experience, while in 2010 a VR headset was around 20.000 USD, this dropped to 5.000 USD in 2013, and at time of writing to 500 USD. A similar trend can be seen in VR software development. Where every detail had to be manually programmed, currently many virtual items and basic VR environments can be bought in store. However, professional programmers are still essential for translating that into a stable and interactive VR environment. The development of Apps by comparison is cheaper. In general there is a need for cost-effectiveness to be added to trials to estimate if implementation of digital solutions is economically viable for treating cognitive impairment (Bryce et al., 2021).

6. Opportunities and recommendations

The authors believe further developments should include smartphone and VR-based interventions, particularly supporting human-supported CR and functional recovery in real-world environments. So far, research on digitalized cognitive remediation does not show generalization to everyday life. We believe this to be the case because of the technology used. Active ingredients are likely to differ per technology. If we want to encourage generalization of skills, we could either bring everyday life into the treatment room with VR/AR, or bring treatment into everyday-life by using smartphone apps. These two technologies both have a potential for bridging the gap and could potentially improve current small effect sizes. Studies indicate feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of VR for measuring and improving social cognition in ROP (Riches et al., 2021). An RCT on VR therapy for improving social functioning in psychosis found improvement in social cognition to be an important mediator of treatment effect (Pot-Kolder et al., 2018). There are recent examples of successful digital interventions targeting functional deficits in ROP (Alvarez-Jimenez et al., 2021). These interventions have employed motivational frameworks such as self-determination theory coupled with social cognition and strengths-based interventions embedded into a social network environment to foster functional recovery (Alvarez-Jimenez et al., 2018). Factors such as motivation and self-efficacy mediate the relationship between cognitive performance and functional outcome (Allott et al., 2020). This indicates that the next generation of digital interventions targeting cognition and functioning in ROP could widen the focus to include motivational frameworks and behavioral change interventions designed to foster engagement, behavioral change and ultimately functioning (Teixeira et al., 2020).

Commercially developed cognitive training technologies should be approached with caution, due to concern regarding the validity of their scientific claims (Max-Planck-Institute, 2014). Nonetheless, many of these applications are commercially popular. We would suggest partnerships between industry and research to develop digital interventions to improve cognition and establish the evidence base while learning from commercial parties on reward and -engagement. Importantly, we believe funders should be aware that the development pipelines of digital interventions require funding models supporting significant up-front development costs and evaluation frameworks that enable flexibility in adapting the technology over time. Both hardware and software become rapidly obsolete and continued upgrading and adapting is needed for an intervention to stay available. One example is the Accelerated Creation-to-Sustainment model (ACTS; (Mohr et al., 2017)), which is a three-phase evaluation framework covering technology development, trialing and sustainment. This research model is well suited to digital intervention development because it allows for the establishing of evidence within the implementation context, ultimately maximizing sustainability in a real-world setting.

An important opportunity afforded by digital technology is enhancing engagement with cognition treatments, particularly for young people. As dropout rates are high and engagement often poor (Harpaz-Rotem et al., 2004), designing digital interventions that make use of evidence-based techniques for reinforcing motivation and engagement, such as gamification, challenges, tracking and feedback, reward and competition (Cugelman, 2013), may overcome these barriers and improve the experience of treatment (Liverpool et al., 2020). For example, adapting ‘drill-and-practice’ CR techniques into gamified digital formats, such as a smartphone app, that offer rewards and challenges for activity completion. We speculate that while engagement is a challenge for both clinical and digital therapies, engagement for young people in particular can be increased with the addition of technology. For them as digital natives digital technologies and cyberspace are already an integral and central part of their everyday lives (Prensky, 2001). However, both the hardware and software design used should align with the young person's needs and expectations for this potential to be met.

No direct comparison has been done between digital treatment for cognitive impairments in ROP versus more chronic stages of psychosis. Reviews of research on cognitive remediation for schizophrenia have included mixed samples (Kambeitz-Ilankovic et al., 2019). We suggest that future studies investigate whether there are differences in response to digital interventions between ROP and samples with persistent psychosis. While outside of the scope of this paper, many cognitive challenges present in ROP are not unique for this group of people and there is an opportunity to learn from other fields, such as cognitive neurology. Another potential opportunity is delivering digital cognitive interventions alongside other treatments. There is evidence that receiving computer-delivered CR alongside standard therapist-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy can result in more rapid symptomatic improvement for ROP (Drake et al., 2014). As people with cognitive impairment tend to be more reliant on services, resulting in greater costs (Patel et al., 2006), offering access to digital forms of CR alongside other treatments may provide opportunities to enhance the efficiency and efficacy of care (Wykes, 2018). For example, a novel online social therapy for ROP showed improvements in vocational recovery, and reduced visits to emergency departments over 18-months compared to usual treatment (Alvarez-Jimenez et al., 2021). Platforms such as this could also integrate digital interventions for those with cognitive deficits, potentially creating synergistic effects through increasing engagement, treatment personalization and concurrently addressing comorbid symptomatology. Another opportunity is to adopt technologies as vehicles through which interventions can be delivered remotely, reducing demand on services and improving accessibility. This is well supported by experiences of clinicians and young people within clinical services during COVID-19 (Davenport et al., 2020; Nicholas et al., 2021). We believe purposely-built platforms are needed that build in functionality to support different types of interventions.(Thompson et al., 2020).

It will be interesting to see the extent of integration of these different technologies into blended care, both with each other and with face to face care to combine strengths. Blended care can be defined as the integration of talking therapies (e.g., CBT, social skills training) with digital content and technologies. Overall access to technology and internet for people with ROP is strong in high income countries. A study on technology access in people with ROP reports PCs/laptops were used by all participants; cellphones/smartphones by 92%, and consoles by 83% (Abdel-Baki et al., 2017). For those individuals with no access to a certain technology, mental health institutions might consider loaners to mitigate this barrier. However, both access to technology and access to reliable and affordable internet connections are likely to form a barrier for many middle- and low-income countries. This is also known as the global digital divide, and refers to the gap between those who benefit from the Digital Age and those who do not (Akhter, 2003).

We believe that to ensure digital technologies match needs and expectations of end-users they need to be included in the design process. Including end-users in the co-design of technological mental health interventions is essential for user uptake (Bevan Jones et al., 2020), and if done appropriately, shows promise for engaging traditionally hard to reach service user groups (Realpe et al., 2020). A significant emphasis on participatory methods has emerged from the broader digital mental health literature over the past decade. Several articles have been written on the importance of lived experience involvement in digital intervention development, including in ROP (Nakarada-Kordic et al., 2017). Most trials of digital interventions include descriptions of lived experience involvement detailing how the intervention was developed (Realpe et al., 2020). What is less clear is the best approach to user involvement. This depends on the aim and purpose of the intervention. However, there has been a recent shift away from pure ‘co-design’ approaches, which weigh the power differential between researcher and end-user equally in making decisions about design, towards ‘user-centered’ design or participatory approaches. The latter draws more heavily on methods to ‘understand’ the lived experience of the end-user as it relates to the intervention, typically through focus groups and usability sessions (Scholten and Granic, 2019) in order to make informed decisions about the design. As such, the researchers and developers retain decision-making control throughout the process. These methods have not been compared empirically, however the latter is more commonly adopted in neighboring academic fields such as computer-human interaction, as well as in industry settings. Regardless of the approach, lived experience involvement is now a standard expectation within the field of digital mental health.

In summary, cognitive impairments are a core symptom of ROP and current treatment options fall short. Using digital technologies to address current limitations is promising. There is evidence showing that integrated use of computerized CR combined with human support to be beneficial, especially for improving functional outcomes. There is early evidence that VR therapy can be used to improve specific cognitive domains like social cognition. However, many opportunities in using digital technology like smartphone apps and online therapeutic learning environments for improving cognitive impairment in ROP are under-explored, and implementation barriers need to be addressed. Additional research in this space is warranted and should involve user-centered, participatory and implementation science methodologies to maximize the chances of developing acceptable, effective, and sustainable supports.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

IB performed the main literary review. IB and RP-K drafted the first version of the manuscript. KA supervised the manuscript. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape research and the final manuscript.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study.

Footnotes

References