Background Technology-based interventions (TBIs) are a useful approach when attempting to provide therapy to more patients with psychosis. Methods Randomized controlled trials of outcomes of TBIs v. face-to-face interventions in psychosis were identified in a systematic search conducted in PubMed/Ovid MEDLINE. Data were extracted independently by two researchers, and standardized mean changes were pooled using a three-level model and network meta-analysis. Results Fifty-eight studies were included. TBIs complementing treatment as usual (TAU) were generally superior to face-to-face interventions (g = 0.16, p ≤ 0.0001) and to specific outcomes, namely, neurocognition (g = 0.13, p ≤ 0.0001), functioning (g = 0.25, p = 0.006), and social cognition (g = 0.32, p ≤ 0.05). Based on the network meta-analysis, the effect of two TBIs differed significantly from zero; these were the TBIs cognitive training for the neurocognitive outcome [g = 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09–0.23] and cognitive behavioral therapy for quality of life (g = 1.27; 95% CI 0.46–2.08). The variables educational level, type of medication, frequency of the intervention, and contact during the intervention moderated the effectiveness of TBIs over face-to-face interventions in neurocognition and symptomatology. Conclusions TBIs are effective for the management of neurocognition, symptomatology, functioning, social cognition, and quality of life outcomes in patients with psychosis. The results of the network meta-analysis showed the efficacy of some TBIs for neurocognition, symptomatology, and quality of life. Therefore, TBIs should be considered a complement to TAU in patients with psychosis.

Introduction Technology-based interventions (TBIs), including computer and Internet-based interventions, mobile interventions, health applications, social media interventions, and interventions using technological devices, could become a useful, effective, accessible, and cost-effective approach (Berry et al., 2016; Firth, 2016) to complement conventional interventions for psychosis Objectives to compare TBIs with conventional interventions for psychosis, focusing mainly on functioning and quality of life. Methods The systematic review preceding this work was based on 58 RCT of TBIs for psychosis. We selected the studies that analyzed functioning (N = 23) and quality of life (N = 15). We calculated the standardized mean change (SMC) and applied a three-level model because there were several effect sizes within the same study. Results There were significant differences between TBIs and conventional interventions for functioning (d = 0.25, SE = 0.09, z = 2.72, p = <.01), but not for quality of life (d = 0.14, SE = 0.08, z = 1.78, p = .076) in patients with psychosis. Conclusions On average, patients who received TBIs performed better in functioning, but not in quality of life. Functioning is impaired in patients with psychosis, so TBIs should be considered a complement and efficacious intervention, highlighting the power of these type of interventions in improving some outcomes. Disclosure No significant relationships.

Introduction Online interventions can be a complement to maintain the long-term effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in First Episode Psychosis (FEP) that have already demonstrated their efficacy in the short and medium term (Calvo et al., 2015). Objectives To test the effectiveness of a mobile app–based intervention (Thinkapp) to improve quality of life, functioning and symptomatology, and reduce days of admission and hospitalizations, in young people with FEP. Methods Fourteen patients with FEP, aged 14–30, recruited from Gregorio Marañón Hospital, Ramón y Cajal Hospital and AMAFE Foundation in Madrid (Spain) received treatment as usual plus a psychoeducational intervention through a mobile app. Changes in dependent variables over the course of the intervention were assessed by means of a battery of clinical tests at baseline, 3-month and 6-month follow-up using a Wilcoxon test. Results Of the fourteen patients included, 7 patients completed the 6-month follow-up and 8 completed the 3-month follow-up. There were significant differences in days of admission (p = 0.042) between baseline and 6-month follow-up. No significant results were observed in other clinical variables. Conclusions The study provides preliminary data potentially related to the reduction of days of admissions. Disclosure No significant relationships.