No abstract

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.

The DelApp test showed good performance, supporting the utility of objectively measuring attention in delirium assessment. This study provides evidence of the feasibility of using a smartphone test for attentional assessment in hospital inpatients with possible delirium, with potential applications in research and clinical practice.

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.

Purpose. The present surveillance study examined predictors of the management of maternal depression in primary care settings. Methods. A total of 217 physicians completed a 60-item survey assessing demographics, physicians' attitudes, beliefs, efficacy, current practices, and perceived barriers regarding the management of maternal depression. Structural equation modeling was used to estimate a model that examined the relationships among physicians' knowledge, beliefs, self-efficacy, perceived barriers, past training toward and current management practices for maternal depression. Results. In a model predicting physician depression management practices, a good overall fit was observed (χ 2 = 136.63, CFI = .97, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .05), with physician comfort with, confidence in, and perceived responsibility for managing maternal depression all having prominent positive associations. Conclusions. These findings will guide the development of future multifaceted intervention strategies to enhance physician skills in managing maternal depression in primary care settings.

Background Clinicians recommend including carers or others in a supporting role in the therapy as an important adaptation of psychological therapies for people with intellectual disabilities. This nested qualitative study from a larger trial explored supporters’ experiences of supporting people with intellectual disabilities receiving behavioural activation or guided self‐help therapies for depression. Method Twenty‐one purposively sampled supporters were interviewed. The semi‐structured interviews were subject to framework analysis, covering expectations of therapy, views of therapy sessions, relationships with therapist and participant, and perceived changes. Results Supporters were positive about both therapies and reported both therapy‐specific and nonspecific therapeutic factors that had significant positive impacts on people's lives. Most supporters reported their involvement contributed to the interventions’ effectiveness, and helped establish closer relationships to the people they were supporting. Conclusions The presence of supporters within psychological therapies for people with intellectual disabilities can be an effective adaptation to therapies for this population.

Background Health professionals were trained to deliver adapted psychological interventions for depression to people with learning disabilities and depression alongside a supporter. Exploring the delivery of psychological interventions can help increase access to therapy. Method Twenty‐seven participants took part in six focus groups, and the data were subject to a Framework Analysis. Results The structure and focus of the manualised therapies, and the use of specific techniques were perceived as key to service‐user engagement. Supporters' involvement was valued by therapists if they had a good relationship and regular contact with the individual they supported. Regular clinical supervision was regarded as vital in understanding their role, assessing progress and delivering the interventions. Conclusions The findings highlight that health professionals can embrace a focussed therapeutic role and increase access to psychological therapies for people with intellectual disabilities.