Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Cognitive Therapy for Low-Functioning Patients With Schizophrenia

Grant, Paul M.·2012·Archives of General Psychiatry

Abstract

CONTEXT: Low-functioning patients with chronic schizophrenia have high direct treatment costs and indirect costs incurred due to lost employment and productivity and have a low quality of life; antipsychotic medications and psychosocial interventions have shown limited efficacy to promote improved functional outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of an 18-month recovery-oriented cognitive therapy program to improve psychosocial functioning and negative symptoms (avolition-apathy, anhedonia-asociality) in low-functioning patients with schizophrenia. Design, Setting, and PARTICIPANTS: A single-center, 18-month, randomized, single-blind, parallel group trial enrolled 60 low-functioning, neurocognitively impaired patients with schizophrenia (mean age, 38.4 years; 33.3% female; 65.0% African American). INTERVENTIONS: Cognitive therapy plus standard treatment vs standard treatment alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Global Assessment Scale score at 18 months after randomization. The secondary outcomes were scores on the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms and the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms at 18 months after randomization. RESULTS: Patients treated with cognitive therapy showed a clinically significant mean improvement in global functioning from baseline to 18 months that was greater than the improvement seen with standard treatment (within-group Cohen d, 1.36 vs 0.06, respectively; adjusted mean [SE], 58.3 [3.30] vs 47.9 [3.60], respectively; P = .03; between-group d = 0.56). Patients receiving cognitive therapy as compared with those receiving standard treatment also showed a greater mean reduction in avolition-apathy (adjusted mean [SE], 1.66 [0.31] vs 2.81 [0.34], respectively; P = .01; between-group d = -0.66) and positive symptoms (hallucinations, delusions, disorganization) (adjusted mean [SE], 9.4 [3.3] vs 18.2 [3.8], respectively; P = .04; between-group d = -0.46) at 18 months. Age was controlled in the analyses, and there were no meaningful group differences in baseline antipsychotic medications (class or dosage) or in medication changes during the course of the trial. CONCLUSION: Cognitive therapy can be successful in promoting clinically meaningful improvements in functional outcome, motivation, and positive symptoms in low-functioning patients with significant cognitive impairment. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00350883.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.129

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 47 references

Cited by

See all 353

Metadata

Authors
Grant, P. M.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Published
2012-02-01
Volume
69
Issue
2
Pages
121
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107329846
Cited by
353
References
47
FWCI
20.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Cognitive Therapy for Low-Functioning Patients With Schizophrenia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.129
The paper
Grant, P. M. (2012). Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Cognitive Therapy for Low-Functioning Patients With Schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.129

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.