Development and content validity of the Person Experiences Interview Survey (PEIS): a measure of the mental health services experiences of people with developmental disabilities.

Purpose: People with developmental disabilities and mental health service experiences have a right to be included in healthcare decisions, including the evaluation of their mental health services and providers. However, few self-report measures address this need. This study aimed to fill this gap by developing and evaluating the content validity, including comprehension, relevance, and comprehensiveness, of the Person Experiences Interview Survey (PEIS) with people with developmental disabilities and mental health experiences. Methods: The research team established a measurement framework based on the Family Experiences Interview Survey (FEIS), resulting in 21 PEIS items that were written in collaboration with young adults with developmental disabilities and mental health service experiences. Comprehension, relevance, and comprehensiveness were evaluated through cognitive interviews with people with developmental disabilities and mental health service experiences (respondents; n = 9) ages 23-49 years. Comprehensiveness and relevance were also evaluated in focus groups with family caregivers (n = 9) and mental health providers (n = 10) who serve this population. Two researchers independently coded open-ended responses to the PEIS for comprehension. A content validity index (CVI), indicating relevance, was calculated for each participant group for each item, and comprehensiveness was rated for item sets. Results: Fifteen of the 21 items met the criteria of ≥80% comprehension, with 89-100% of responses containing all or some intended information. All items met the CVI ≥80% criterion in at least two of the three groups. In all item sets, between 1 and 4 family members or providers felt one question was missing. Respondents used the response scale in a manner that corresponded with their open-ended descriptions, and family caregivers and providers had positive feedback about the response scale's visual cues and number of choices. Using these findings, four items were removed and six items were revised, resulting in a 17-item measure. Conclusion: This study presents a novel and promising measure, the Person Experiences Interview Survey (PEIS). It also demonstrates that the employment of accessible methods allows people with developmental disabilities to meaningfully evaluate mental health services and providers. The PEIS shows great promise for application in the field by engaging those directly involved in the evaluation of mental health services and providers.

Evaluation of telemental health services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: protocol for a randomized non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Roughly 40% of those with intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD) have mental health needs, twice the national average. Unfortunately, outpatient mental health services are often inaccessible, increasing reliance on hospital-based services. While telemental health services hold potential to address this gap, little is known about the effectiveness of telemental health for the diversity of persons with IDD, especially as it relates to crisis prevention and intervention services. Accordingly, the aims of this study are to: (1) compare telemental health versus in-person crisis prevention and intervention services among people with IDD; and (2) understand if outcomes vary across subpopulations, in order to identify potential disparities. METHODS: This study will take place within START (Systemic, Therapeutic, Assessment, Resources, and Treatment), a national evidence-based model of mental health crisis prevention and intervention for people with IDD. A total of 500 youth and adults, located across nine states, will be randomized 1:1 to telemental health vs. in-person. Participant inclusion criteria are ages 12-45 years, living in a family setting, and newly enrolled (within 90 days) to START. Outcomes will be assessed, using a non-inferiority design, for up to 1 year or until discharge. The intervention is comprised of four components: (1) outreach; (2) consultation/coping skills; (3) intake/assessment; and, (4) 24-hour crisis response. The in-person condition will deliver all components in-person. The telemental health condition will deliver components 1 & 2, via telephonic or other communication technology, and components 3 & 4 in-person. Outcomes include mental health crisis contacts, mental health symptoms, emergency psychiatric service use, perceived quality of mental healthcare, and time to discharge. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this will be the first trial of a telemental health crisis program for the IDD population. The study will be executed by an interdisciplinary team of experts that includes persons with lived experience of disability. Understanding the benefits of specific telemental health methods has important implications to the design of interventions. This telemental health study offers promise to address disparities in access to mental health care for people with IDD across diverse racial, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ( #NCT05336955 ; Registration Date: 4/20/2022).

Telehealth information and communication technology access for family caregivers of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and mental health needs.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth is increasingly used to deliver mental health services. However, the potential benefits of telehealth for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and mental health needs (IDD-MH) may not be fully realized. This study addresses gaps in knowledge about access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) for individuals with IDD-MH from the perspective of their family caregivers. OBJECTIVE: What factors are associated with access to ICTs among family caregivers of people with IDD-MH who use START services? METHODS: Retrospective analysis of cross-sectional interview data gathered for START use at the onset of COVID-19. START is a crisis prevention and intervention evidence-based model for people with IDD-MH implemented across the USA. To assess needs during COVID-19, START coordinators conducted interviews with 1455 family caregivers between March and July 2020. A multinomial regression model examined correlates of ICT access, as indicated by an index (poor, limited, and optimal access). Correlates included the level of IDD, age, gender, race, ethnicity, rural setting of the person with IDD-MH, and caregiver status. RESULTS: Age (ages 23-30 years) and sole caregiver status were significantly associated with limited access (both p ≤ .001). Age (ages 23-30 years and ≥31 years, p < .001), race (Black or African American, p = .001), ethnicity (Hispanic, p = .004), and sole caregiver status (p < .001) were significantly associated with poor access. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities existed in ICT access for adults, specific racial/ethnic groups, and sole caregiver households. Healthcare policy related to telehealth must consider how ICT access can be equitable for all users with IDD-MH.

Psychiatric Presentations and Medication Use in Older Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

OBJECTIVE: Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are living longer, yet research about the medical and psychiatric needs of older adults still lags behind that of younger individuals with IDD. The aim of this study was to assess age-related differences in the mental health presentations of adults with IDD. METHODS: Fully deidentified data for adults 30 years and older were extracted from the START (Systemic, Therapeutic, Assessment, Resources, and Treatment) Information Reporting System, a deidentified database housed at the Center for START Services. Caregivers and START team documents reported psychiatric diagnoses, service use, recent stressors, and challenging behaviors. t Tests, Mann Whitney U tests, χ2 tests, and multinominal logistic regression models were used to compare the two age groups, 30-49 years (n = 1,188) versus 50 years and older (n = 464). RESULTS: Older adults had more medical conditions, fewer reported psychiatric conditions, and were more likely to be taking more psychiatric medications compared to younger adults, after adjusting for demographic variables, disability level, and number of recent stressors. CONCLUSION: Although older individuals reported fewer psychiatric diagnoses, they were more likely to take higher numbers of psychiatric medications and have more medical conditions. Clinicians and researchers ought to devote more attention to the healthcare needs of older adults with IDD, a vulnerable group exposed to polypharmacy and at risk of adverse events.

Predictors of Mental Health Crises Among Individuals With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Enrolled in the START Program.

OBJECTIVE: Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities disproportionately use emergency psychiatric services compared with their neurotypical peers, suggesting that such individuals and their supports are at increased risk for crisis events. This prospective study examined the timing, outcomes, and predictors of mental health crises for this population. METHODS: The data came from Systemic, Therapeutic, Assessment, Resources, and Treatment (START), a national model that provides mental health crisis services for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the United States. The study included 1,188 individuals from four U.S. regions enrolled between 2018 and 2019. The outcome was urgent crisis contacts with the START program. Baseline and clinical predictors were examined with multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: More than a quarter had at least one crisis contact, and 9% had three or more. Contacts increased within the initial 3 months of START enrollment, followed by a steep drop-off thereafter; few contacts happened after 1 year. Almost 45% of the contacts occurred after hours, and 30% involved police. Clinical factors predicted crisis contact most robustly, followed by lack of occupational supports. After START crisis intervention, 73% of individuals remained in their primary setting. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and mental health needs, crisis stabilization resources are needed, including after hours. Results clearly identify times and risk factors for mental health crisis contacts, including frequent involvement with emergency responders. Importantly, gainful employment conveyed benefits for community stabilization. Findings may be leveraged to develop effective mental health crisis intervention services and supports for this underserved group.

Improvement in Mental Health Outcomes and Caregiver Service Experiences Associated With the START Program.

This study examined outcomes from the Systemic, Therapeutic, Assessment, Resources, and Treatment (START) program, a community-based tertiary care model for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and mental health needs. The sample included 111 START service users and their family caregivers, who were receiving START Clinical Team services, located in the Northeast and Southwest regions of the United States. Results from the analyses found a significant 1-year pre-post improvement in caregiver service experiences and mental health symptoms of the service user. A significant decrease in psychiatric hospitalizations and emergency department visits was also found (all p < .01). These data suggest that START holds promise in improving outcomes, for both the caregiver and service user, while reducing dependence on costly and restrictive hospital-based services.