Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Nov 27;1(1):e2.
doi: 10.2196/mental.3840. eCollection 2014 Jul-Dec.

Implementation and Outcomes of a Collaborative Multi-Center Network Aimed at Web-Based Cognitive Training - COGWEB Network

Affiliations

Implementation and Outcomes of a Collaborative Multi-Center Network Aimed at Web-Based Cognitive Training - COGWEB Network

Vítor Tedim Cruz et al. JMIR Ment Health. .

Abstract

Background: Cognitive care for the most prevalent neurologic and psychiatric conditions will only improve through the implementation of new sustainable approaches. Innovative cognitive training methodologies and collaborative professional networks are necessary evolutions in the mental health sector.

Objective: The objective of the study was to describe the implementation process and early outcomes of a nationwide multi-organizational network supported on a Web-based cognitive training system (COGWEB).

Methods: The setting for network implementation was the Portuguese mental health system and the hospital-, academic-, community-based institutions and professionals providing cognitive training. The network started in August 2012, with 16 centers, and was monitored until September 2013 (inclusions were open). After onsite training, all were allowed to use COGWEB in their clinical or research activities. For supervision and maintenance were implemented newsletters, questionnaires, visits and webinars. The following outcomes were prospectively measured: (1) number, (2) type, (3) time to start, and (4) activity state of centers; age, gender, level of education, and medical diagnosis of patients enrolled.

Results: The network included 68 professionals from 41 centers, (33/41) 80% clinical, (8/41) 19% nonclinical. A total of 298 patients received cognitive training; 45.3% (n=135) female, mean age 54.4 years (SD 18.7), mean educational level 9.8 years (SD 4.8). The number enrolled each month increased significantly (r=0.6; P=.031). At 12 months, 205 remained on treatment. The major causes of cognitive impairment were: (1) neurodegenerative (115/298, 38.6%), (2) structural brain lesions (63/298, 21.1%), (3) autoimmune (40/298, 13.4%), (4) schizophrenia (30/298, 10.1%), and (5) others (50/298, 16.8%). The comparison of the patient profiles, promoter versus all other clinical centers, showed significant increases in the diversity of causes and spectrums of ages and education.

Conclusions: Over its first year, there was a major increase in the number of new centers and professionals, as well as of the clinical diversity of patients treated. The consolidation of such a national collaborative network represents an innovative step in mental health care evolution. Furthermore, it may contribute to translational processes in the field of cognitive training and reduce disease burden.

Keywords: cognitive training; collaborative network; dementia; eHealth systems; memory clinic; mental health services; neurorehabilitation; schizophrenia; stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: VTC and JP have a shareholder position at Neuroinova, Lda, a company that develops and commercializes COGWEB related products. VB and MC received fees for the technological development of COGWEB.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of patients enrolled each month in Web-based cognitive training through the COGWEB network.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cumulative number of patients treated during the first year (blue) against the number of patients receiving active treatment trough the COGWEB network each month (red).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Cunningham FC, Ranmuthugala G, Plumb J, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J. Health professional networks as a vector for improving healthcare quality and safety: A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Mar;21(3):239–249. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000187. http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=22129933 bmjqs-2011-000187 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eaton J, McCay L, Semrau M, Chatterjee S, Baingana F, Araya R, Ntulo C, Thornicroft G, Saxena S. Scale up of services for mental health in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet. 2011 Oct 29;378(9802):1592–1603. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60891-X.S0140-6736(11)60891-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chauvet V, Chollet B, Soda G, Huault I. The contribution of network research to managerial culture and practice. European Management Journal. 2011 Oct;29(5):321–334. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2011.06.005. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237311000430 - DOI
    1. Borgatti SP, Halgin DS. On network theory. Organization Science. 2011 Oct;22(5):1168–1181. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0641. http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1100.0641?journalCode... - DOI - DOI
    1. Lang PB, Gouveia FC, Leta J. Cooperation in health: Mapping collaborative networks on the web. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71415. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071415. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071415 PONE-D-13-06930 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources