↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological Augmentation of Psychosocial and Remediation Training Efforts in Schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pharmacological Augmentation of Psychosocial and Remediation Training Efforts in Schizophrenia
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00177
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip D. Harvey, Michael Sand

Abstract

Pharmacological approaches to cognitive enhancement have received considerable attention but have not had considerable success in improving their cognitive and functional targets. Other intervention strategies, such as cognitive remediation therapy (CRT), have been shown to enhance cognitive performance but have not been found to improve functional outcomes without additional psychosocial interventions. Recently, several studies have attempted to enhance the effects of CRT by adding pharmacological interventions to the CRT treatments. In addition, as CRT has been shown to synergistically improve the effects of psychosocial interventions, the combination of pharmacological therapies aimed at cognition and psychosocial interventions may itself provide a promising strategy for improving functional outcomes. This review and commentary examines the current state of interventions combining CRT and psychosocial treatments with pharmacological augmentation. Our focus is on the specific level of effect of the pharmacological intervention, which could be enhancing motivation, training efficiency, or the consolidation of therapeutic gains. Different pharmacological strategies (e.g., stimulants, plasticity-inducing agents, or attentional or alertness enhancers) may have the potential to lead to different types of gains when combined with CRT or psychosocial interventions. The relative potential of these different mechanisms for immediate and durable effects is considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Professor 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 21 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 25 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,478,452
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#5,838
of 10,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,703
of 320,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#56
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,139 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.