Mixed methods protocol evaluates CONCA's acceptability in young individuals with psychosis and health professionals, highlighting barriers and facilitators.
BACKGROUND Early detection of cognitive impairments in individuals with psychosis offers a means to support clinical and functional recovery. However, there are significant barriers to assessing cognition in clinical services, including lack of staff time, training and confidence in administering assessments. We have developed the Cardiff ONline Cognitive Assessment (CONCA), aiming to address these barriers, and here present the protocol to assess its acceptability as a clinical tool. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to conduct early-stage testing of CONCA as a clinical tool to determine whether it is acceptable to young people with a history of psychosis and to health professionals. METHODS This cross-sectional study will use a mixed methods approach. 100 young people with a history of psychosis will complete CONCA and an acceptability questionnaire. We will conduct qualitative interviews with a minimum of 20 participants with psychosis and 10 participants with professional experience of working in early intervention in psychosis services to explore opinions on CONCA as a clinical tool, attitudes towards and barriers/facilitators of implementing CONCA and cognitive testing more generally in clinical services. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and linear/logistic regression. Qualitative interviews will be analysed using a deductive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS The enrolment of study participants started in July 2025 and is expected to end in October 2026. Data analysis is expected to be finalised by March 2027. CONCLUSIONS Our results will provide new data on the acceptability of CONCA and cognitive testing more generally amongst patients and clinicians, as well as identify barriers and facilitators to CONCA’s implementation. This will provide the groundwork for a larger hybrid effectiveness-implementation study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lynham et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: