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.

Research shows that in children without learning disabilities, parenting groups which support parents to develop skills to manage behaviours that challenge in their child can be helpful. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommended that more research was needed to strengthen the evidence for such interventions for children with moderate to severe learning disability who are more likely to display behaviours that challenge in England. In this study, we tested in real-world conditions a programme called level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P, which has shown positive results in trials outside of the United Kingdom. Trained therapists delivered six groups and three individual sessions over 9 weeks to parents of children aged 30­59 months with moderate to severe learning disabilities. Two hundred and sixty-one parents were allocated to one of two arms by chance (randomisation): one received Stepping Stones Triple P and treatment as usual and the other treatment as usual only. Treatment as usual included support and advice by general practitioners or community child development teams. Our primary outcome was parent-reported child behaviour at 12 months after randomisation. We also collected data on other outcomes and carried out interviews with parents, service managers and therapists to find out their views about Stepping Stones Triple P. We did not find that Stepping Stones Triple P reduces behaviours that challenge in the child more than treatment as usual at 12 months. However, when we looked at people who received more than half of the sessions, there was a larger reduction in behaviours which suggests that Stepping Stones Triple P works for families if they attend the full programme. Stepping Stones Triple P seems to be good value for money, as we found that at 12 months (covering 10 months of costs), the Stepping Stones Triple P cost £1058 less than treatment as usual from a health and social care perspective. As such, Stepping Stones Triple P is fairly cheap to deliver and a suitable early intervention for behaviours that challenge especially because of positive feedback from parents. Throughout the trial, we included a Parent Advisory Group that oversaw study materials, interview topic guides and promotion of the study.

What works, how and in which contexts when supporting parents to implement intensive speech and language therapy at home for children with speech sound disorder? A protocol for a realist review.

INTRODUCTION: Speech and language therapists (SLTs) worldwide report challenges with providing recommended, evidence-based intervention intensity for children with speech sound disorder (SSD). Challenges such as service constraints and/or family contexts impact on access to optimal therapy intensity. Existing research indicates that empowering and training parents to deliver intervention at home, alongside SLT support, offers one possible solution to increasing the intensity of intervention children with SSD receive. Digital health could increase accessibility to intensive home practice and help sustain engagement with therapy activities. Further exploration is needed around what makes parent-implemented interventions for children with SSD effective, for who and in which situations. This paper outlines the protocol for a realist review which aims to explore the active ingredients and contextual factors of effective digital parent-led interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review will explore the research question, following six stages. The scope of the review will be determined, and initial programme theories will be developed about what works in digital parent-implemented interventions for SSD, for whom, how, why and in what circumstances. Relevant secondary data, identified through a formal search strategy, will be selected, appraised, analysed and synthesised using realist principles to test and further refine the initial programme theories. This process will develop refined underpinning explanatory theories which capture the interaction between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of the intervention. An expert steering group will provide insight to inform explanatory theories, searches, and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. The refined programme theories from the review will inform the next stages of a wider study. A subsequent realist evaluation will test and further refine theories with key stakeholders. Following this, the underpinning programme theory will be used to coproduce a digital tool, to support parents to deliver home intervention alongside SLT support.

The views of psychiatrists on proposed changes to the England and Wales Mental Health Act 1983 legislation for people with intellectual disability: A national study.

BACKGROUND: The Draft Mental Health Bill proposes removal of both intellectual disability and autism from Section 3 of the Mental Health Act for England and Wales (MHA). This would lead to people with intellectual disability (PwID) and/or autism could not be detained beyond 28 days, in the absence of diagnosed co-occurring mental illness. AIM: To obtain views of psychiatrists working with PwID in England and Wales regarding the proposed MHA changes. This study focusses specifically on the impact on PwID. METHODS: A cross-sectional online mixed methodology survey of Likert and free-text response questions was developed, to ascertain perceptions of proposed legislative changes to the MHA. A non-discriminatory exponential snowballing technique leading to non-probability sampling was used to disseminate the survey. Quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact tests. Thematic analysis was conducted on free text responses. RESULTS: A total of 82 psychiatrists (33%) from approximately 250 eligible completed the survey. Nearly two-thirds (64%) reported good awareness of the proposed changes, with over half (55%) reporting disagreement with the changes. Psychiatrists working in inpatient settings for PwID reported increased awareness of the changes, less agreement with the reforms, and increased expectations of the reforms having negative unintended consequences, compared to their peers working exclusively in the community. Consultants reported greater disagreement with the changes compared to their non-consultant peers. Qualitative analysis identified five main themes: impact on diagnosis and treatment, seeking alternative options, introducing inequities, resources, and meeting holistic care goals through the Care, Education and Treatment Reviews (CETR) process. CONCLUSION: Psychiatrists working with PwID report widespread disagreement with the proposed changes to the MHA for PwID, with greater levels of disagreement among those working in inpatient services. Caution with respect to the proposed changes, and monitoring of the impact of the changes if implemented, is advised.

Being a child with intellectual disabilities in hospital: The need for an individualised approach to care.

BACKGROUND: There is limited qualitative research focussed specifically on what it is like for children and young people with intellectual disabilities coming into hospital, with much of the evidence-base being about those with Autism Spectrum Condition or adults with intellectual disabilities. AIM: To share rich detail of the emotional and physical impact on children and young people with intellectual disabilities of attending hospital, from their own and their parent's perspective. METHODS: Talking Mats interviews, sticker survey and photography with children and young people with intellectual disabilities, and in-depth interviews, hospital diaries and photography with their parents. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The multiple and compounding layers of complexity surrounding hospital care of children and young people with intellectual disabilities resulted in challenges associated with loss of familiarity and routine, undergoing procedures, managing sensory overload, managing pain and having a lack of safety awareness. An individualised approach to their care is needed.

An investigation into the critical ingredients of intensive support teams for adults with intellectual disabilities who display challenging behaviour.

AIMS AND METHOD: NHS England recommends the commissioning of intensive support teams (ISTs) to provide effective support to people with intellectual disability (ID) when in crisis. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding how these services should be organised. This exploratory secondary analysis of data from the IST-ID study aimed to investigate IST characteristics that relate to clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was mean change in the total score on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist and its subscales. RESULTS: A measure of mental illness severity was the only variable associated with our primary outcome of reduction in challenging behaviour. Accommodation type, affective status and gender were associated with the subdomains of irritability, hyperactivity and lethargy in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our findings indicate that variation in clinical outcomes is influenced by individual rather than organisational factors. Further research on the theoretical fidelity of the IST-ID model is needed.

The potential for medicinal cannabis to help manage challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disability: A perspective review.

BACKGROUND: Around 2% of the population have intellectual disabilities. Over one-third people with intellectual disabilities (PwID) present with 'challenging behaviour', which nosologically and diagnostically is an abstract concept. Challenging behaviour is influenced by a range of bio-psycho-social factors in a population, which is unable to suitably comprehend and/or communicate concerns. This predisposes to poor health and social outcomes. There is no evidence-based treatments for managing challenging behaviour. Cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are being trialled for a range of disorders, which are over-represented in PwID and provoke challenging behaviours, such as severe epilepsy, spasticity, post-traumatic stress disorder, social phobia, pain, etc. METHODS: This perspective review explores the different conditions, which benefit from medicinal CBD/THC preparations, by analysing recent literature from neurobiological, pre-clinical and clinical studies related to the topic. The evidence is synthesised to build an argument of the therapeutic benefits and challenges of medicinal cannabis to manage severe challenging behaviour in PwID. RESULTS: There is developing evidence of medicinal CBD/THC improving psychiatric and behavioural presentations in general. In particular, there is emergent proof in certain key areas of influence of medicinal CBD/THC positively supporting challenging behaviour, for example in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. However, there are significant challenges in employing such treatments in vulnerable populations such as PwID. CONCLUSION: Further clinical research for the considered use of medicinal CBD/THC for challenging behaviour management in PwID is needed. Strong co-production with experts with lived experience is needed for further testing to be done in this exciting new area.

Mental health and service use of parents with and without borderline intellectual functioning.

BACKGROUND: People with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) encounter greater social adversities than the general population and have an increased prevalence of mental illness. However, little is known about the socio-demographic characteristics and mental health of parents with BIF. METHODS: A secondary data analysis of the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2014 was conducted. Logistic regression models were fitted to compare differences in socio-demographic, mental health and service-use characteristics between parents and non-parents with and without BIF, and to investigate if the relationship between parent status and mental health outcomes was modified by BIF status, sex, and employment. RESULTS: Data from 6872 participants was analyzed; 69.1% were parents. BIF parents had higher odds of common mental disorder, severe mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, self-harm/suicide and were more likely to see their General Practitioner (GP) and to receive mental health treatment than non-BIF parents. BIF parents did not have a higher prevalence of mental health problems than BIF non-parents. Being a parent, after adjusting for BIF status and other confounders, was associated with increased odds of having a common mental disorder, visits to see a GP and treatment for mental health. Female parents had higher odds of treatment for mental health problems. CONCLUSIONS: Being a parent is associated with elevated rates of common mental disorders. There is a higher burden of mental health problems and service use in people with BIF. A greater provision of specialist support services including ascertainment is indicated for this group.

Stakeholder views on the barriers and facilitators of psychosocial interventions to address reduction in aggressive challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disabilities.

Background: Success of psychosocial interventions in reducing aggressive challenging behaviour is likely to be related not only to mechanistic aspects, but also to therapeutic and system factors. The study aims to examine the facilitators and barriers that influence whether psychosocial interventions for aggressive challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disabilities lead to positive change. Methods: We conducted 42 semi-structured interviews with adults with intellectual disabilities and aggressive challenging behaviour, family/paid carers, and professionals engaged in or delivering a psychosocial intervention across the UK. Data were analysed thematically using a framework approach. Results: Stakeholders considered therapeutic and supportive relationships and personalised care as facilitating factors of psychosocial interventions to address aggressive challenging behaviour. The operational structure of community intellectual disability services and conflicting expectations of professionals and carers were the main contextual barriers that impeded the implementation of psychosocial interventions addressing aggressive challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disabilities. Conclusions: Findings highlight the valued components that maximise positive change in adults with intellectual disabilities who display aggressive challenging behaviour. Several operational adjustments including referral criteria, roles of professionals and workforce issues need to be addressed in services to maximise the implementation of psychosocial interventions to reduce aggressive challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disabilities.

The current study looked at what factors that lead to good outcomes from therapies that aim to reduce aggressive challenging behaviour in adults with learning disabilities. We also looked at the factors that may prevent positive change ( i.e., reduction in aggressive challenging behaviour). We interviewed 42 people including 14 adults with learning disabilities, 13 carers (6 family; 7 paid) and 13 professionals across the UK. All stakeholders agreed that supportive relationships between the person with a learning disability and their therapist, staff consistent, personalised therapy and involvement of the person with a learning disability and their carer(s) in care planning facilitate the reduction of aggressive challenging behaviour. On the other hand, differences in expectations between professionals and carers, personal reasons ( e.g. being the right timing for a person), and the way community learning disability services currently run may stop people from having the opportunity to take part in therapy are barriers to positive change such as reduction of aggressive challenging behaviour. The study findings highlight the valued components that maximise the positive change in adults with intellectual disabilities who display aggressive challenging behaviour. Several operational adjustments including referral criteria, roles of professionals and workforce issues need to be addressed in services to maximise the implementation of psychosocial interventions to reduce aggressive challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disabilities.

Identifying individuals with intellectual disability who access mental health support and are at high risk for adverse clinical outcomes: cohort study.

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disability often experience aggressive challenging behaviour and mental health issues. It can be difficult to identify those who are at higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes when in clinical care. AIMS: To characterise potential subgroups in adults with intellectual disability referred to mental health services in those presenting with aggressive behaviour or common mental disorders (CMDs). METHOD: There were 836 adults (≥18 years) with intellectual disability and a record of aggressive challenging behaviour, and 205 patients with intellectual disability and CMDs, who were seen in specialist mental health services over a 5-year period. Cluster analysis was used to define patient characteristics associated with clinical outcome. RESULTS: Distinct patient groups with differentiated profiles were observed in people with intellectual disability displaying aggressive challenging behaviour, and in those presenting with CMDs. Characteristics of the aggressive behaviour group who experienced adverse outcomes included being <30 years old, being male, more mentions of aggression and agitation in their clinical record, a diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder and prescription of psychotropic medication. Characteristics of the CMD cluster that experienced adverse clinical outcomes were being older, being a White male, having a mild intellectual disability and physical health concerns. CONCLUSIONS: People with intellectual disability who experience adverse clinical outcomes can be identified with a cluster analysis approach of common features, but differ by clinical presentation. This could be used not only to stratify this clinically heterogeneous population in terms of response to interventions, but also improve precision in the development of tailored interventions.

The effectiveness of parent-Child observation in parent-Mediated programmes for children with developmental disabilities and externalizing disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review evaluated the treatment effects of communication-focused parent-mediated interventions (CF-PMT), a form of intervention that involves therapists observing parent-child interactions and giving feedback to parents on how they can practice positive parenting strategies to prevent or reduce externalizing behaviours in children with developmental disabilities. A literature search was conducted on three electronic databases. To be included in the review, studies had to: evaluate CF-PMT where therapists give feedback after observing parent-child interactions; examine changes in externalizing behaviours amongst children with any forms of developmental disability; and adopt a randomised controlled trial study design. Fifteen studies met eligible criteria for the literature review, of those, 13 studies had available data on changes in the primary (child externalizing behaviours) and secondary outcomes (parental stress, child linguistic abilities and child social responsiveness). We found significant treatment effects for CF-PMT in reducing child externalizing behaviours (d = -.60) but not for any of the secondary outcomes. A sensitivity analysis showed a small but significant treatment effect for parental stress (d = -.18). Considerable bias was observed due to the lack of available information reported by studies on aspects measured by the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Overall, we found evidence to support the benefits of complex interventions which incorporate direct parent-child observations and feedback to improve behavioural outcomes amongst children with developmental disabilities.

Clinical and cost evaluation of two models of specialist intensive support teams for adults with intellectual disabilities who display behaviours that challenge: the IST-ID mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive support teams (ISTs) are recommended for individuals with intellectual disabilities who display behaviours that challenge. However, there is currently little evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of IST models operating in England. AIMS: To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of IST models. METHOD: We carried out a cohort study to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two previously identified IST models (independent and enhanced) in England. Adult participants (n = 226) from 21 ISTs (ten independent and 11 enhanced) were enrolled. The primary outcome was change in challenging behaviour between baseline and 9 months as measured by the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Community version 2. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant differences between models for the primary outcome (adjusted ß = 4.27; 95% CI -6.34 to 14.87; P = 0.430) or any secondary outcomes. Quality-adjusted life-years (0.0158; 95% CI: -0.0088 to 0.0508) and costs (£3409.95; 95% CI -£9957.92 to £4039.89) of the two models were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence that both models were associated with clinical improvement for similar costs at follow-up. We recommend that the choice of service model should rest with local services. Further research should investigate the critical components of IST care to inform the development of fidelity criteria, and policy makers should consider whether roll out of such teams should be mandated.

Stakeholder perspectives on intensive support teams for adults with intellectual disabilities who display behaviour that challenges in England.

BACKGROUND: Adults with intellectual disabilities often display behaviour that challenges that is a result of biological differences, psychological challenges, and lack of appropriate social support. Intensive Support Teams (IST) are recommended to support the care needs of this group and avoid hospitalisation. However, little attention has been paid to the perspectives of stakeholders who manage, work in, or use ISTs. METHOD: Interviews and focus groups were conducted with 50 stakeholders (IST service managers and professionals, adults with intellectual disabilities, and family and paid carers) of ISTs. Services operated according to one of two service models previously identified in ISTs in England (enhanced or independent). RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified accessible and flexible support, individualised care, and the involvement of carers and other relevant agencies in management plans and reviews as features of good IST care highlighted by all stakeholder groups. IST managers and professionals described the key challenges of current IST provision as unclear referral criteria, limited interfaces with other local services, and perceived threats associated with funding and staff retention. Findings were similar between the two IST models. CONCLUSIONS: ISTs are able to offer care and specialist support that is valued by families, service users and other care providers. However, they face several operational challenges that should be addressed if ISTs are to reach their potential along with community intellectual disability services in supporting adults with intellectual disabilities who display behaviour that challenges in the community.

Complex interventions for aggressive challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability: A rapid realist review informed by multiple populations.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 10% of people with intellectual disability display aggressive challenging behaviour, usually due to unmet needs. There are a variety of interventions available, yet a scarcity of understanding about what mechanisms contribute to successful interventions. We explored how complex interventions for aggressive challenging behaviour work in practice and what works for whom by developing programme theories through contexts-mechanism-outcome configurations. METHODS: This review followed modified rapid realist review methodology and RAMESES-II standards. Eligible papers reported on a range of population groups (intellectual disability, mental health, dementia, young people and adults) and settings (community and inpatient) to broaden the scope and available data for review. RESULTS: Five databases and grey literature were searched and a total of 59 studies were included. We developed three overarching domains comprising of 11 contexts-mechanism-outcome configurations; 1. Working with the person displaying aggressive challenging behaviour, 2. Relationships and team focused approaches and 3. Sustaining and embedding facilitating factors at team and systems levels. Mechanisms underlying the successful application of interventions included improving understanding, addressing unmet need, developing positive skills, enhancing carer compassion, and boosting staff self-efficacy and motivation. CONCLUSION: The review emphasises how interventions for aggressive challenging behaviour should be personalised and tailored to suit individual needs. Effective communication and trusting relationships between service users, carers, professionals, and within staff teams is essential to facilitate effective intervention delivery. Carer inclusion and service level buy-in supports the attainment of desired outcomes. Implications for policy, clinical practice and future directions are discussed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020203055.

Recording of intellectual disability in general hospitals in England 2006-2019: Cohort study using linked datasets.

BACKGROUND: Accurate recognition and recording of intellectual disability in those who are admitted to general hospitals is necessary for making reasonable adjustments, ensuring equitable access, and monitoring quality of care. In this study, we determined the rate of recording of intellectual disability in those with the condition who were admitted to hospital and factors associated with the condition being unrecorded. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Retrospective cohort study using 2 linked datasets of routinely collected clinical data in England. We identified adults with diagnosed intellectual disability in a large secondary mental healthcare database and used general hospital records to investigate recording of intellectual disability when people were admitted to general hospitals between 2006 and 2019. Trends over time and factors associated with intellectual disability being unrecorded were investigated. We obtained data on 2,477 adults with intellectual disability who were admitted to a general hospital in England at least once during the study period (total number of admissions = 27,314; median number of admissions = 5). People with intellectual disability were accurately recorded as having the condition during 2.9% (95% CI 2.7% to 3.1%) of their admissions. Broadening the criteria to include a nonspecific code of learning difficulty increased recording to 27.7% (95% CI 27.2% to 28.3%) of all admissions. In analyses adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic deprivation, having a mild intellectual disability and being married were associated with increased odds of the intellectual disability being unrecorded in hospital records. We had no measure of quality of hospital care received and could not relate this to the presence or absence of a record of intellectual disability in the patient record. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition and recording of intellectual disability in adults admitted to English general hospitals needs to be improved. Staff awareness training, screening at the point of admission, and data sharing between health and social care services could improve care for people with intellectual disability.

Who cares? A scoping review on intellectual disability, epilepsy and social care.

PURPOSE: Nearly a quarter of people with Intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy. Many have seizures across their lifetime. In the UK supporting their epilepsy linked risks and needs, particularly in professional care settings and in the community, requires significant social care input. Therefore, the interface between social and health care services is important. This study aim is to identify key intersectional areas of social provision for PWID and epilepsy. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidance with suitable search terms. The search was completed in CINAHL, Embase, Psych INFO, SCIE, and Cochrane electronic databases by an information specialist. A quality assessment was completed for the included studies where appropriate. The included studies were analysed qualitatively to identify key themes and provide a narrative description of the evidence by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 748 papers screened, 94 were retrieved. Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria with a range of methodologies. A thematic analysis generated four key categories for significant social care involvement i.e., staff training and education; emergency seizure management; holistic approach to care; and nocturnal monitoring and supervision. CONCLUSIONS: PwID with epilepsy have support needs that require fulfilling by various aspects of special care provision, many within the social ambit. Inspite of evidence of these needs and recurrent calls to work jointly with social care providers this has not happened. There is limited research into social care role in epilepsy management in PwID which needs addressing.

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.

The Association between Physical Environment and Externalising Problems in Typically Developing and Neurodiverse Children and Young People: A Narrative Review.

The physical environment is of critical importance to child development. Understanding how exposure to physical environmental domains such as greenspace, urbanicity, air pollution or noise affects aggressive behaviours in typical and neurodiverse children is of particular importance given the significant long-term impact of those problems. In this narrative review, we investigated the evidence for domains of the physical environment that may ameliorate or contribute to the display of aggressive behaviours. We have considered a broad range of study designs that include typically developing and neurodiverse children and young people aged 0-18 years. We used the GRADE system to appraise the evidence. Searches were performed in eight databases in July 2020 and updated in June 2022. Additional articles were further identified by hand-searching reference lists of included papers. The protocol for the review was preregistered with PROSPERO. Results: We retrieved 7174 studies of which 67 are included in this review. The studies reported on green space, environmental noise and music, air pollution, meteorological effects, spatial density, urban or rural setting, and interior home elements (e.g., damp/sensory aspects/colour). They all used well validated parent and child reported measures of aggressive behaviour. Most of the studies were rated as having low or unclear risk of bias. As expected, noise, air pollution, urbanicity, spatial density, colour and humidity appeared to increase the display of aggressive behaviours. There was a dearth of studies on the role of the physical environment in neurodiverse children. The studies were heterogeneous and measured a range of aggressive behaviours from symptoms to full syndromes. Greenspace exposure was the most common domain studied but certainty of evidence for the association between environmental exposures and aggression problems in the child or young person was low across all domains. We found a large knowledge gap in the literature concerning neurodiverse children, which suggests that future studies should focus on these children, who are also more likely to experience adverse early life experiences including living in more deprived environments as well as being highly vulnerable to the onset of mental ill health. Such research should also aim to dis-aggregate the underlying aetiological mechanisms for environmental influences on aggression, the results of which may point to pathways for public health interventions and policy development to address inequities that can be relevant to ill health in neurodiverse young people.