SummaryBackgroundPsychological therapies are first-line interventions for depression, but existing provision is not accessible for many adults with intellectual disabilities. We investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a behavioural activation intervention (BeatIt) for people with intellectual disabilities and depression. BeatIt was compared with a guided self-help intervention (StepUp).MethodsWe did a multicentre, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial with follow-up at 4 months and 12 months after randomisation. Participants aged 18 years or older, with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities and clinically significant depression were recruited from health and social care services in the UK. The primary outcome was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD) score at 12 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ISCRTN, number ISRCTN09753005.FindingsBetween Aug 8, 2013, and Sept 1, 2015, 161 participants were randomly assigned (84 to BeatIt; 77 to StepUp); 141 (88%) participants completed the trial. No group differences were found in the effects of BeatIt and StepUp based on GDS-LD scores at 12 months (12·03 [SD 7·99] GDS-LD points for BeatIt vs 12·43 [SD 7·64] GDS-LD points for StepUp; mean difference 0·26 GDS-LD points [95% CI −2·18 to 2·70]; p=0·833). Within-group improvements in GDS-LD scores occurred in both groups at 12 months (BeatIt, mean change −4·2 GDS-LD points [95% CI −6·0 to −2·4], p<0·0001; StepUp, mean change −4·5 GDS-LD points [–6·2 to −2·7], p<0·0001), with large effect sizes (BeatIt, 0·590 [95% CI 0·337–0·844]; StepUp, 0·627 [0·380–0·873]). BeatIt was not cost-effective when compared with StepUp, although the economic analyses indicated substantial uncertainty. Treatment costs were only approximately 3·6–6·8% of participants' total support costs. No treatment-related or trial-related adverse events were reported.InterpretationThis study is, to our knowledge, the first large randomised controlled trial assessing individual psychological interventions for people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems. These findings show that there is no evidence that BeatIt is more effective than StepUp; both are active and potentially effective interventions.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

BackgroundInterventions that teach people with bipolar disorder (BD) to recognize and respond to early warning signs (EWS) of relapse are recommended but implementation in clinical practice is poor.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate a Web-based enhanced relapse prevention intervention (ERPonline) and to report preliminary evidence of effectiveness.MethodsA single-blind, parallel, primarily online RCT (n=96) over 48 weeks comparing ERPonline plus usual treatment with “waitlist (WL) control” plus usual treatment for people with BD recruited through National Health Services (NHSs), voluntary organizations, and media. Randomization was independent, minimized on number of previous episodes (<8, 8-20, 21+). Primary outcomes were recruitment and retention rates, levels of intervention use, adverse events, and participant feedback. Process and clinical outcomes were assessed by telephone and Web and compared using linear models with intention-to-treat analysis.ResultsA total of 280 people registered interest online, from which 96 met inclusion criteria, consented, and were randomized (49 to WL, 47 to ERPonline) over 17 months, with 80% retention in telephone and online follow-up at all time points, except at week 48 (76%). Acceptability was high for both ERPonline and trial methods. ERPonline cost approximately £19,340 to create, and £2176 per year to host and maintain the site. Qualitative data highlighted the importance of the relationship that the users have with Web-based interventions. Differences between the group means suggested that access to ERPonline was associated with: a more positive model of BD at 24 weeks (10.70, 95% CI 0.90 to 20.5) and 48 weeks (13.1, 95% CI 2.44 to 23.93); increased monitoring of EWS of depression at 48 weeks (−1.39, 95% CI −2.61 to −0.163) and of hypomania at 24 weeks (−1.72, 95% CI −2.98 to −0.47) and 48 weeks (−1.61, 95% CI −2.92 to −0.30), compared with WL. There was no evidence of impact of ERPonline on clinical outcomes or medication adherence, but relapse rates across both arms were low (15%) and the sample remained high functioning throughout. One person died by suicide before randomization and 5 people in ERPonline and 6 in WL reported ideas of suicide or self-harm. None were deemed study related by an independent Trial Steering Committee (TSC).ConclusionsERPonline offers a cheap accessible option for people seeking ongoing support following successful treatment. However, given high functioning and low relapse rates in this study, testing clinical effectiveness for this population would require very large sample sizes. Building in human support to use ERPonline should be considered.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 56908625; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56908625 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6of1ON2S0)

Background No studies have explored the acceptability of Behavioural Activation and Guided Self‐Help interventions for depression with people who have intellectual disabilities. Method Twenty‐five participants were purposively sampled from participants taking part in a trial comparing Behavioural Activation with a Guided Self‐Help intervention. A framework analysis was used to analyse interviews covering participants’ expectations and views of therapy. Results Participants were largely positive about both interventions. However, they identified specific aspects of each intervention which they had found helpful. All participants valued the therapeutic relationship. The participants also had a number of criticisms and suggestions for improving the therapies. A common concern was the time‐limited nature of the interventions and a wish for longer‐term help. Overall, both sets of participants felt the interventions had relevance for their wider lives. Conclusions The participants reported having positive engagement with the therapies but expressed a wish for longer‐term supportive relationships.

Background Depression is the most prevalent mental health problem among people with learning disabilities. Objective The trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation for depression experienced by people with mild to moderate learning disabilities. The intervention was compared with a guided self-help intervention. Design A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, with follow-up at 4, 8 and 12 months post randomisation. There was a nested qualitative study. Setting Participants were recruited from community learning disability teams and services and from Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services in Scotland, England and Wales. Participants Participants were aged ≥ 18 years, with clinically significant depression, assessed using the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychiatric Disorders for use with Adults with Learning Disabilities. Participants had to be able to give informed consent and a supporter could accompany them to therapy. Interventions BeatIt was a manualised behavioural activation intervention, adapted for people with learning disabilities and depression. StepUp was an adapted guided self-help intervention. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD). Secondary outcomes included carer ratings of depressive symptoms and aggressiveness, self-reporting of anxiety symptoms, social support, activity and adaptive behaviour, relationships, quality of life (QoL) and life events, and resource and medication use. Results There were 161 participants randomised (BeatIt, n = 84; StepUp, n = 77). Participant retention was strong, with 141 completing the trial. Most completed therapy (BeatIt: 86%; StepUp: 82%). At baseline, 63% of BeatIt participants and 66% of StepUp participants were prescribed antidepressants. There was no statistically significant difference in GDS-LD scores between the StepUp (12.94 points) and BeatIt (11.91 points) groups at the 12-month primary outcome point. However, both groups improved during the trial. Other psychological and QoL outcomes followed a similar pattern. There were no treatment group differences, but there was improvement in both groups. There was no economic evidence suggesting that BeatIt may be more cost-effective than StepUp. However, treatment costs for both groups were approximately only 4–6.5% of the total support costs. Results of the qualitative research with participants, supporters and therapists were in concert with the quantitative findings. Both treatments were perceived as active interventions and were valued in terms of their structure, content and perceived impact. Limitations A significant limitation was the absence of a treatment-as-usual (TAU) comparison. Conclusions Primary and secondary outcomes, economic data and qualitative results all clearly demonstrate that there was no evidence for BeatIt being more effective than StepUp. Future work Comparisons against TAU are required to determine whether or not these interventions had any effect. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09753005. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

AIBD is feasible and acceptable but lack of impact on clinical outcomes indicates that adaptations are required. These are discussed in relation to qualitative feedback and recent literature published since the trial completed.