Pilot study evaluates cognitive improvements in psychiatric inpatients using web-based therapy, indicating feasibility.
Cognitive impairments are a core feature of psychotic disorders and are strongly associated with long-term functional disability. Although Cognitive Remediation Therapy (CRT) is an evidence-based intervention for improving cognition in psychosis, its feasibility and preliminary effects in acute inpatient settings—particularly using web-based platforms—remain underexplored. This single-arm, pre–post pilot study evaluated the feasibility of delivering a web-based CRT program and examined preliminary cognitive outcomes in a secure psychiatric inpatient facility. Thirteen inpatients with psychotic and non-psychotic diagnoses completed a 15-week intervention comprising twice-weekly sessions that included adaptive computerized CRT exercises (Happy Neuron Pro) and therapist-led bridging discussions focused on metacognitive reflection and functional application. Cognitive performance was assessed pre- and post-intervention using the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery. All participants completed the study with no withdrawals or adverse events, attending a mean of 27.77 of 30 sessions (93.0%). Pre–post improvements were observed in processing speed, verbal learning, and overall composite cognition, with large within-sample effect sizes that remained robust in sensitivity analyses. Exploratory analyses suggested potential associations between sex, history of self-harm, and cognitive change, though these findings require cautious interpretation. Findings support the feasibility of inpatient web-based CRT and provide preliminary cognitive effect-size estimates. Given the single-arm design and absence of systematic medication monitoring, results should be interpreted as exploratory signals warranting controlled validation. Overall, findings support the feasibility of inpatient web-based CRT and provide preliminary signals of cognitive benefit, warranting evaluation in larger controlled studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nixon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: