Positive behaviour support training for staff for treating challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities: a cluster RCT

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an adapted intervention for preschoolers with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities displaying behaviours that challenge: the EPICC-ID RCT

Background

Stepping Stones Triple P is an adapted intervention for parents of young children with developmental disabilities who display behaviours that challenge, aiming at teaching positive parenting techniques and promoting a positive parent-child relationship.

Objective

To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P in reducing behaviours that challenge in children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities.

Design, setting, participants

A parallel two-arm pragmatic multisite single-blind randomised controlled trial recruited a total of 261 dyads (parent and child). The children were aged 30-59 months and had moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Participants were randomised, using a 3 : 2 allocation ratio, into the intervention arm (Stepping Stones Triple P; n = 155) or treatment as usual arm (n = 106). Participants were recruited from four study sites in Blackpool, North and South London and Newcastle.

Intervention

Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P consists of six group sessions and three individual phone or face-to-face contacts over 9 weeks. These were changed to remote sessions after 16 March 2020 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Main outcome measure

The primary outcome measure was the parent-reported Child Behaviour Checklist, which assesses the severity of behaviours that challenge.

Results

We found a small non-significant difference in the mean Child Behaviour Checklist scores (-4.23, 95% CI -9.98 to 1.52, p = 0.146) in the intervention arm compared to treatment as usual at 12 months. Per protocol and complier average causal effect sensitivity analyses, which took into consideration the number of sessions attended, showed the Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference at 12 months was lower in the intervention arm by -10.77 (95% CI -19.12 to -2.42, p = 0.014) and -11.53 (95% CI -26.97 to 3.91, p = 0.143), respectively. The Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference between participants who were recruited before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was estimated as -7.12 (95% CI -13.44 to -0.81) and 7.61 (95% CI -5.43 to 20.64), respectively (p = 0.046), suggesting that any effect pre-pandemic may have reversed during the pandemic. There were no differences in all secondary measures. Stepping Stones Triple P is probably value for money to deliver (-£1057.88; 95% CI -£3218.6 to -£46.67), but decisions to roll this out as an alternative to existing parenting interventions or treatment as usual may be dependent on policymaker willingness to invest in early interventions to reduce behaviours that challenge. Parents reported the intervention boosted their confidence and skills, and the group format enabled them to learn from others and benefit from peer support. There were 20 serious adverse events reported during the study, but none were associated with the intervention.

Limitations

There were low attendance rates in the Stepping Stones Triple P arm, as well as the coronavirus disease 2019-related challenges with recruitment and delivery of the intervention.

Conclusions

Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P did not reduce early onset behaviours that challenge in very young children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. However, there was an effect on child behaviours for those who received a sufficient dose of the intervention. There is a high probability of Stepping Stones Triple P being at least cost neutral and therefore worth considering as an early therapeutic option given the long-term consequences of behaviours that challenge on people and their social networks.

Future work

Further research should investigate the implementation of parenting groups for behaviours that challenge in this population, as well as the optimal mode of delivery to maximise engagement and subsequent outcomes.

Study registration

This study is registered as NCT03086876 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03086876?term=Hassiotis±Angela&draw=1&rank=1).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: HTA 15/162/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural interventions for outwardly directed aggressive behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities

BACKGROUND

Outwardly directed aggressive behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities is a significant issue that may lead to poor quality of life, social exclusion and inpatient psychiatric admissions. Cognitive and behavioural approaches have been developed to manage aggressive behaviour but the effectiveness of these interventions on reducing aggressive behaviour and other outcomes are unclear. This is the third update of this review and adds nine new studies, resulting in a total of 15 studies in this review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural interventions on outwardly directed aggressive behaviour compared to usual care, wait-list controls or no treatment in people with intellectual disability. We also evaluated enhanced interventions compared to non-enhanced interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was March 2022. We revised the search terms to include positive behaviour support (PBS).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of children and adults with intellectual disability of any duration, setting and any eligible comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were change in 1. aggressive behaviour, 2. ability to control anger, and 3. adaptive functioning, and 4.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

Our secondary outcomes were change in 5. mental state, 6. medication, 7. care needs and 8. quality of life, and 9. frequency of service utilisation and 10. user satisfaction data. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. We expressed treatment effects as mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we pooled data using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated version comprises nine new studies giving 15 included studies and 921 participants. The update also adds new interventions including parent training (two studies), mindfulness-based positive behaviour support (MBPBS) (two studies), reciprocal imitation training (RIT; one study) and dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT; one study). It also adds two new studies on PBS. Most studies were based in the community (14 studies), and one was in an inpatient forensic service. Eleven studies involved adults only. The remaining studies involved children (one study), children and adolescents (one study), adolescents (one study), and adolescents and adults (one study). One study included boys with fragile X syndrome. Six studies were conducted in the UK, seven in the USA, one in Canada and one in Germany. Only five studies described sources of funding. Four studies compared anger management based on cognitive behaviour therapy to a wait-list or no treatment control group (n = 263); two studies compared PBS with treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 308); two studies compared carer training on mindfulness and PBS with PBS only (n = 128); two studies involving parent training on behavioural approaches compared to wait-list control or TAU (n = 99); one study of mindfulness to a wait-list control (n = 34); one study of adapted dialectal behavioural therapy compared to wait-list control (n = 21); one study of RIT compared to an active control (n = 20) and one study of modified relaxation compared to an active control group (n = 12). There was moderate-certainty evidence that anger management may improve severity of aggressive behaviour post-treatment (MD -3.50, 95% CI -6.21 to -0.79; P = 0.01; 1 study, 158 participants); very low-certainty evidence that it might improve self-reported ability to control anger (MD -8.38, 95% CI -14.05 to -2.71; P = 0.004, I2 = 2%; 3 studies, 212 participants), adaptive functioning (MD -21.73, 95% CI -36.44 to -7.02; P = 0.004; 1 study, 28 participants) and psychiatric symptoms (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.17; P = 0.002; 1 study, 28 participants) post-treatment; and very low-certainty evidence that it does not improve quality of life post-treatment (MD -5.60, 95% CI -18.11 to 6.91; P = 0.38; 1 study, 129 participants) or reduce service utilisation and costs at 10 months (MD 102.99 British pounds, 95% CI -117.16 to 323.14; P = 0.36; 1 study, 133 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that PBS may reduce aggressive behaviour post-treatment (MD -7.78, 95% CI -15.23 to -0.32; P = 0.04, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 275 participants) and low-certainty evidence that it probably does not reduce aggressive behaviour at 12 months (MD -5.20, 95% CI -13.27 to 2.87; P = 0.21; 1 study, 225 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that PBS does not improve mental state post-treatment (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.49; P = 1.21; 1 study, 214 participants) and very low-certainty evidence that it might not reduce service utilisation at 12 months (MD -448.00 British pounds, 95% CI -1660.83 to 764.83; P = 0.47; 1 study, 225 participants). There was very low-certainty evidence that mindfulness may reduce incidents of physical aggression (MD -2.80, 95% CI -4.37 to -1.23; P < 0.001; 1 study; 34 participants) and low-certainty evidence that MBPBS may reduce incidents of aggression post-treatment (MD -10.27, 95% CI -14.86 to -5.67; P < 0.001, I2 = 87%; 2 studies, 128 participants). Reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence were risk of bias (particularly selection and performance bias); imprecision (results from single, often small studies, wide CIs, and CIs crossing the null effect); and inconsistency (statistical heterogeneity).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that cognitive-behavioural approaches such as anger management and PBS may reduce outwardly directed aggressive behaviour in the short term but there is less certainty about the evidence in the medium and long term, particularly in relation to other outcomes such as quality of life. There is some evidence to suggest that combining more than one intervention may have cumulative benefits. Most studies were small and there is a need for larger, robust randomised controlled trials, particularly for interventions where the certainty of evidence is very low. More trials are needed that focus on children and whether psychological interventions lead to reductions in the use of psychotropic medications.

Current practice in the measurement and interpretation of intervention adherence in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ideally all participants in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) should fully receive their allocated intervention; however, this rarely occurs in practice. Intervention adherence affects Type II error so influences the interpretation of trial results and subsequent implementation. We aimed to describe current practice in the definition, measurement, and reporting of intervention adherence in non-pharmacological RCTs, and how this data is incorporated into a trial's interpretation and conclusions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of phase III RCTs published between January 2018 and June 2020 in the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library for the Health Technology Assessment, Programme Grants for Applied Research, and Public Health Research funding streams.

RESULTS

Of 237 reports published, 76 met the eligibility criteria and were included. Most RCTs (n = 68, 89.5%) reported adherence, though use of terminology varied widely; nearly three quarters of these (n = 49, 72.1%) conducted a sensitivity analysis. Adherence measures varied between intervention types: behavioural change (n = 10, 43.5%), psychological therapy (n = 5, 83.3%) and physiotherapy/rehabilitation (n = 8, 66.7%) interventions predominately measured adherence based on session attendance. Whereas medical device and surgical interventions (n = 17, 73.9%) primarily record the number of participants receiving the allocated intervention, a third (n = 33, 67.3%) of studies reported a difference in findings between primary and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most trials report elements of adherence, terminology was inconsistent, and there was no systematic approach to its measurement, analyses, interpretation, or reporting. Given the importance of adherence within clinical trials, there is a pressing need for a standardised approach or framework.

Challenges to conducting randomised controlled trials with adults with intellectual disabilities: Experiences of international experts

BACKGROUND

Globally, conducting randomised controlled trials can be a complex endeavour. The complexity increases when including participants with cognitive or intellectual disabilities. A fuller understanding of the barriers and challenges that can be expected in such trials may help researchers to make their trials more inclusive for people with disabilities.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve international trial experts.

RESULTS

Eight themes emerged relating to challenges linked to: 1) participant co-morbidities, 2) participant ability levels, 3) ethics and consent, 4) the RCT methodology, 5) gatekeeping, 6) staff turnover, 7) lack of technical understanding and 8) attitudes and perceptions.

CONCLUSION

Conducting trials with cognitively disabled participants can pose unique challenges although many can be overcome with 'reasonable adjustments'. Challenges that are harder to overcome are attitudes and perceptions that people (professional staff, funding bodies, carers or fellow researchers) hold towards the utility of conducting trials with cognitively disabled populations.

Staff training in positive behaviour support for behaviour that challenges in people with intellectual disability: cost-utility analysis of a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Behaviour that challenges in people with intellectual disability is associated with higher healthcare, social care and societal costs. Although behavioural therapies are widely used, there is limited evidence regarding the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

AIMS

We aimed to assess the incremental cost per QALY gained of therapist training in positive behaviour support (PBS) and treatment as usual (TAU) compared with TAU using data from a cluster randomised controlled trial (Clinical Trials.gov registration: NCT01680276).

METHOD

We conducted a cost-utility analysis (cost per QALY gained) of 23 teams randomised to PBS or TAU, with a total of 246 participants followed up over 36 months. The primary analysis was from a healthcare cost perspective with a secondary analysis from a societal cost perspective.

RESULTS

Over 36 months the intervention resulted in an additional 0.175 QALYs (discounted and adjusted 95% CI -0.068 to 0.418). The total cost of training in and delivery of PBS is £1598 per participant plus an additional cost of healthcare of £399 (discounted and adjusted 95% CI -603 to 1724). From a healthcare cost perspective there is an 85% probability that the intervention is cost-effective compared with TAU at a £30 000 willingness to pay for a QALY threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high probability that training in PBS is cost-effective as the cost of training and delivery of PBS is balanced out by modest improvements in quality of life. However, staff training in PBS is not supported given we found no evidence for clinical effectiveness.

A Bayesian parametric approach to handle missing longitudinal outcome data in trial-based health economic evaluations

Trial-based economic evaluations are typically performed on cross-sectional variables, derived from the responses for only the completers in the study, using methods that ignore the complexities of utility and cost data (e.g. skewness and spikes). We present an alternative and more efficient Bayesian parametric approach to handle missing longitudinal outcomes in economic evaluations, while accounting for the complexities of the data. We specify a flexible parametric model for the observed data and partially identify the distribution of the missing data with partial identifying restrictions and sensitivity parameters. We explore alternative non-ignorable missingness scenarios through different priors for the sensitivity parameters, calibrated on the observed data. Our approach is motivated by, and applied to, data from a trial assessing the cost-effectiveness of a new treatment for intellectual disability and challenging behaviour.

Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of PBS-based staff training for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability

Background

Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) for challenging behaviour is a complex intervention. Process evaluation is pivotal in fully understanding the mechanisms and contextual factors that impact on participant outcomes.

Aims

To conduct a process evaluation of a national clinical trial investigating the impact of PBS-based staff training on the level of challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability.

Method

The Medical Research Council guidance for process evaluation of complex interventions was followed. Semi-structured interviews with 62 stakeholders from the intervention arm (service users, family and paid carers, service managers, staff who delivered the intervention and PBS trainers), quantitative data from the study database and an external evaluation of the quality of the PBS plans were used.

Results

Twenty-one health staff volunteered to be trained in delivering PBS. Available log data from 17 therapists revealed that they worked with 63 participants a median of 11.50 hours (IQR 8–32). Only 33 out of 108 reports had included all elements of the intervention. Another 47 reports had some elements of the intervention. All PBS plans were rated weak, indicating insufficient quality to impact challenging behaviour. Stakeholders reported an appreciation of PBS and its potential to impact quality of care and engagement with the participant. However, they also identified important challenges including managing PBS-related caseloads, paid carer turnover and service commitment to the delivery of PBS.

Conclusions

PBS-based staff training was well received, but therapists found it difficult to undertake all the elements of the intervention in routine care. Implementing a workforce training strategy is important to better define the active components of PBS, and resource implications if the intervention is no better than usual care.

A full Bayesian model to handle structural ones and missingness in economic evaluations from individual-level data

Economic evaluations from individual-level data are an important component of the process of technology appraisal, with a view to informing resource allocation decisions. A critical problem in these analyses is that both effectiveness and cost data typically present some complexity (eg, nonnormality, spikes, and missingness) that should be addressed using appropriate methods. However, in routine analyses, standardised approaches are typically used, possibly leading to biassed inferences. We present a general Bayesian framework that can handle the complexity. We show the benefits of using our approach with a motivating example, the MenSS trial, for which there are spikes at one in the effectiveness and missingness in both outcomes. We contrast a set of increasingly complex models and perform sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the conclusions to a range of plausible missingness assumptions. We demonstrate the flexibility of our approach with a second example, the PBS trial, and extend the framework to accommodate the characteristics of the data in this study. This paper highlights the importance of adopting a comprehensive modelling approach to economic evaluations and the strategic advantages of building these complex models within a Bayesian framework.