Behavioural interventions to treat anxiety in adults with autism and moderate to severe intellectual disabilities: the BEAMS-ID feasibility study.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health technology assessment Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.3310/MWTQ5721
Peter E Langdon, Magdalena M Apanasionok, Emma Scripps, Karen Bunning, Malwina Filipczuk, David Gillespie, Richard P Hastings, Andrew Jahoda, Rachel McNamara, Dheeraj Rai, Kylie M Gray
{"title":"Behavioural interventions to treat anxiety in adults with autism and moderate to severe intellectual disabilities: the BEAMS-ID feasibility study.","authors":"Peter E Langdon, Magdalena M Apanasionok, Emma Scripps, Karen Bunning, Malwina Filipczuk, David Gillespie, Richard P Hastings, Andrew Jahoda, Rachel McNamara, Dheeraj Rai, Kylie M Gray","doi":"10.3310/MWTQ5721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interventions for anxiety need to be adapted to meet the needs of autistic people with moderate to severe learning disabilities and successfully modelled before evidence about efficacy can be generated from clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives were to: (1) adapt a behavioural intervention for anxiety, develop an intervention fidelity checklist and logic model, and appraise candidate outcome measures, together with carers, autistic people, and clinicians, (2) characterise treatment-as-usual, (3) model the adapted intervention to determine the acceptability and feasibility for all stakeholders, judge the appropriateness of outcome measures, examine the feasibility and acceptability of consent and associated processes and (4) describe factors that facilitate or challenge intervention delivery.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study had two phases. Phase 1a: using consensus methods, an intervention adaptation group was formed who met to adapt the intervention, appraise candidate outcome measures, and contribute to the development of the intervention fidelity checklists and logic model. Phase 1b: a national online survey was conducted with professionals to characterise treatment-as-usual. Phase 2: this was a single-group non-randomised feasibility study designed to model the intervention to test intervention feasibility and acceptability, outcome measures, and aspects of the research process.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Participants were recruited from National Health Service community adult learning disabilities teams in England.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Participants aged 16 and over with a diagnosis of autism, moderate to severe learning disabilities, an anxiety disorder, and a carer who was available to take part in the intervention. For those who lacked capacity to make a decision about taking part, a consultee had to provide advice that the participant should be included in the study.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>The intervention comprised 12 sessions alongside treatment-as-usual.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and research processes, outcome measure completion rates, and intervention adherence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intervention was successfully adapted and modelled with 28 autistic participants with moderate to severe learning disabilities. The intervention was judged to be feasible and acceptable by autistic adults with learning disabilities, carers, and therapists. Carers and therapists suggested minor intervention revisions. Carers completed 100% of outcome measures and the missing data rate was low; however, they indicated that some of the questions were repetitive and said they had difficulty responding to some items. The use of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005, led to an average 5-week delay to participant enrolment. The accrual rate was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and improved during the summer and early autumn of 2022.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Randomisation was not modelled within this feasibility study, although carers and therapists indicated that this would be acceptable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The BEAMS-ID intervention and associated study processes were judged to be feasible and acceptable. The intervention required minor revision.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>The BEAMS-ID intervention should be tested further within a trial.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as ISRCTN12637590.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129804) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 72. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"28 72","pages":"1-147"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/MWTQ5721","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Interventions for anxiety need to be adapted to meet the needs of autistic people with moderate to severe learning disabilities and successfully modelled before evidence about efficacy can be generated from clinical trials.

Objectives: The objectives were to: (1) adapt a behavioural intervention for anxiety, develop an intervention fidelity checklist and logic model, and appraise candidate outcome measures, together with carers, autistic people, and clinicians, (2) characterise treatment-as-usual, (3) model the adapted intervention to determine the acceptability and feasibility for all stakeholders, judge the appropriateness of outcome measures, examine the feasibility and acceptability of consent and associated processes and (4) describe factors that facilitate or challenge intervention delivery.

Design: This study had two phases. Phase 1a: using consensus methods, an intervention adaptation group was formed who met to adapt the intervention, appraise candidate outcome measures, and contribute to the development of the intervention fidelity checklists and logic model. Phase 1b: a national online survey was conducted with professionals to characterise treatment-as-usual. Phase 2: this was a single-group non-randomised feasibility study designed to model the intervention to test intervention feasibility and acceptability, outcome measures, and aspects of the research process.

Setting: Participants were recruited from National Health Service community adult learning disabilities teams in England.

Participants: Participants aged 16 and over with a diagnosis of autism, moderate to severe learning disabilities, an anxiety disorder, and a carer who was available to take part in the intervention. For those who lacked capacity to make a decision about taking part, a consultee had to provide advice that the participant should be included in the study.

Interventions: The intervention comprised 12 sessions alongside treatment-as-usual.

Main outcome measures: The feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and research processes, outcome measure completion rates, and intervention adherence.

Results: The intervention was successfully adapted and modelled with 28 autistic participants with moderate to severe learning disabilities. The intervention was judged to be feasible and acceptable by autistic adults with learning disabilities, carers, and therapists. Carers and therapists suggested minor intervention revisions. Carers completed 100% of outcome measures and the missing data rate was low; however, they indicated that some of the questions were repetitive and said they had difficulty responding to some items. The use of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005, led to an average 5-week delay to participant enrolment. The accrual rate was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and improved during the summer and early autumn of 2022.

Limitations: Randomisation was not modelled within this feasibility study, although carers and therapists indicated that this would be acceptable.

Conclusions: The BEAMS-ID intervention and associated study processes were judged to be feasible and acceptable. The intervention required minor revision.

Future work: The BEAMS-ID intervention should be tested further within a trial.

Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN12637590.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129804) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 72. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
治疗自闭症和中重度智障成人焦虑症的行为干预:BEAMS-ID 可行性研究。
背景:焦虑症干预措施需要进行调整,以满足有中度至重度学习障碍的自闭症患者的需求,并在通过临床试验获得疗效证据之前成功建立模型:目标:目的在于目标:(1) 与照护者、自闭症患者和临床医生一起调整焦虑行为干预,制定干预忠实性检查表和逻辑模型,并评估候选结果测量指标;(2) 描述 "惯常治疗 "的特点;(3) 建立调整后干预的模型,以确定所有利益相关者的可接受性和可行性,判断结果测量指标的适当性,检查同意及相关程序的可行性和可接受性;(4) 描述促进或挑战干预实施的因素:本研究分为两个阶段。第 1a 阶段:采用协商一致的方法,成立干预措施调整小组,对干预措施进行调整,评估候选的结果测量指标,并协助制定干预措施忠实性核对表和逻辑模型。第 1b 阶段:对专业人员进行全国性在线调查,以了解 "惯常治疗 "的特点。第二阶段:这是一项单组非随机可行性研究,旨在建立干预模型,以测试干预的可行性和可接受性、结果测量以及研究过程的各个方面:参与者从英格兰国民健康服务社区成人学习障碍团队中招募:年龄在 16 岁及以上、被诊断患有自闭症、中度至重度学习障碍、焦虑症的参与者,以及一名可以参与干预的照顾者。对于那些没有能力决定是否参与研究的人,必须由顾问提供建议,让其参与研究:干预措施:干预措施包括 12 个疗程和常规治疗:主要结果测量:干预和研究过程的可行性和可接受性、结果测量完成率和干预坚持率:结果:28 名患有中度至重度学习障碍的自闭症参与者成功地对干预措施进行了调整和模拟。有学习障碍的成年自闭症患者、照护者和治疗师都认为该干预措施是可行和可接受的。照护者和治疗师建议对干预措施稍作修改。照护者100%完成了结果测量,数据缺失率很低;但是,他们表示有些问题是重复的,并说他们在回答某些问题时有困难。2005 年《心智能力法案》的使用导致参与者注册平均延迟了 5 周。受 COVID-19 大流行的影响,入选率在 2022 年夏季和初秋有所提高:尽管护理人员和治疗师表示可以接受随机化,但这项可行性研究并未模拟随机化:BEAMS-ID干预和相关研究过程被认为是可行和可接受的。干预措施需要稍作修改:研究注册:研究注册:本研究注册为 ISRCTN12637590:本奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估项目资助(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR129804),全文发表于《健康技术评估》第28卷第72期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
期刊最新文献
Early high-dose cryoprecipitate to reduce mortality in adult patients with traumatic haemorrhage: the CRYOSTAT-2 RCT with cost-effectiveness analysis. Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests for acute respiratory infection: a systematic review of reviews. The effect of two speech and language approaches on speech problems in people with Parkinson's disease: the PD COMM RCT. Alitretinoin versus phototherapy as the first-line treatment in adults with severe chronic hand eczema: the ALPHA RCT. Transperineal biopsy devices in people with suspected prostate cancer - a systematic review and economic evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1