Supporting people with intellectual disabilities in psychological therapies for depression: A qualitative analysis of supporters' experiences.

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.

Behavioural activation versus guided self-help for depression in adults with learning disabilities: the BeatIt RCT.

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.

Comparison of behavioural activation with guided self-help for treatment of depression in adults with intellectual disabilities: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Psychological 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). METHODS: We 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. FINDINGS: Between 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. INTERPRETATION: This 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. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.