Impact of Social Stories on social and emotional health of autism spectrum primary school children: the ASSSIST2 RCT with economic evaluation.

Background: Differences in the way autistic children experience the world can contribute to anxiety and stress. Carol Gray's Social Stories™ are a highly personalised intervention to support children by providing social information about specific situations in an individual story. Objectives: This randomised controlled trial aimed to establish whether Social Stories are clinically effective and cost-effective in improving social responsiveness and social and emotional health in children on the autism spectrum in schools. Design: A multisite pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial comparing Social Stories with care as usual. Setting: Eighty-seven schools (clusters) across Yorkshire and the Humber. Participants: Two hundred and forty-nine children were randomised via a bespoke system hosted at York Trials Unit (129 Social Stories and 120 care as usual). Recruitment was completed in May 2021. Participants were children aged 4-11 years with a diagnosis of autism, alongside teachers, interventionists and caregivers. Recruitment was via schools, NHS trusts, support groups and local publicity. Intervention: The intervention included training for educational professionals and caregivers covering psychoeducation and implementation of Social Stories. Stories were written around contextualised goals around the child's need for social information. Interventionists read the Social Story™ with the child at least six times over 4 weeks during school. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was the Social Responsiveness Scale-2 completed by teachers at 6 months (the primary end point), which measures social awareness, cognition, communication and behaviour. Data were collected from caregivers and educational professionals at 6 weeks and 6 months through questionnaires. Blinding of participants was not possible. Results: At 6 months, the estimated difference in expected teacher-reported Social Responsiveness Scale-2 T-score (the primary end point) was -1.61 (95% confidence interval -4.18 to 0.96, p = 0.220), slightly favouring the intervention group. The estimated differences for the parent-reported secondary outcomes at 6 months were small and generally favoured the control group except the measure of children's quality-adjusted life-year (+ 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.032 to 0.035) and parental stress (-1.49, 95% confidence interval -5.43 to 2.46, p = 0.460), which favoured the intervention group. Children in the intervention group met their individual goals more frequently than children who received usual care alone (0.97 confidence interval 0.21 to 1.73, p = 0.012). The intervention is likely to save small costs (-£191 per child, 95% confidence interval -767.7 to 337.7) and maintain a similar quality of life compared to usual care. The probability of Social Stories being a preferred option is 75% if the society is willing to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Limitations include considerable disruptions during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Conclusion: Social Stories are used in schools and represent a low-cost intervention. There is no clinically evident impact on social responsiveness, anxiety and/or depression, parental stress or general health. Benefits were observed for specific behavioural goals as assessed by the teacher, and Social Stories may serve as a useful tool for facilitating dialogue between children and school staff to address specific behavioural challenges. Usage should be at the school's discretion. Future work: Given the uncertainty of the results in light of coronavirus disease 2019, further work to establish the impact of Social Stories is merited. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11634810. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/111/91) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 39. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Autism affects the way children experience the world, and some children find social situations stressful. We wanted to know whether Social Stories™, developed by Carol Gray, helped children with their social skills and behaviour in school and whether they offered value for money. A randomised controlled trial design was used, which gave schools an equal chance of being asked to deliver Social Stories or to continue providing care as usual. Two hundred and forty-nine children from 87 schools took part and we trained school staff and parents to write and deliver Social Stories. We agreed with teachers and parents, what each child needed help with and wrote stories with this in mind. Trained staff read the Social Story with the child at least six times over 4 weeks. Follow-up information was collected from parents and school staff at the start of the study, after 6 weeks and 6 months. After 6 months, teachers completed a questionnaire called the Social Responsiveness Scale-2 which measures the child's social skills. Using these measures, the results suggest that Social Stories do not lead to any significant changes in social skills, mental health, parent stress, general health or quality of life but children in schools allocated to Social Stories met their goal more frequently and incurred less costs than children who did not. Parents and educational professionals found the Social Stories intervention and training beneficial. Based on our findings, Social Stories do not appear to improve general social skills in primary-aged autistic children. Benefits were observed for specific goals, and school-based costs were reduced.

One session treatment (OST) is equivalent to multi-session cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in children with specific phobias (ASPECT): results from a national non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 5%-10% children and young people (CYP) experience specific phobias that impact daily functioning. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is recommended but has limitations. One Session Treatment (OST), a briefer alternative incorporating CBT principles, has demonstrated efficacy. The Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT) investigated the non-inferiority of OST compared to multi-session CBT for treating specific phobias in CYP. METHODS: ASPECT was a pragmatic, multi-center, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial in 26 CAMHS sites, three voluntary agency services, and one university-based CYP well-being service. CYP aged 7-16 years with specific phobia were randomized to receive OST or CBT. Clinical non-inferiority and a nested cost-effectiveness evaluation was assessed 6-months post-randomization using the Behavioural Avoidance Task (BAT). Secondary outcome measures included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety Depression Scale, goal-based outcome measure, and EQ-5DY and CHU-9D, collected blind at baseline and six-months. RESULTS: 268 CYPs were randomized to OST (n = 134) or CBT (n = 134). Mean BAT scores at 6 months were similar across groups in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations (CBT: 7.1 (ITT, n = 76), 7.4 (PP, n = 57), OST: 7.4 (ITT, n = 73), 7.6 (PP, n = 56), on the standardized scale-adjusted mean difference for CBT compared to OST -0.123, 95% CI -0.449 to 0.202 (ITT), mean difference -0.204, 95% CI -0.579 to 0.171 (PP)). These findings were wholly below the standardized non-inferiority limit of 0.4, suggesting that OST is non-inferior to CBT. No between-group differences were found on secondary outcomes. OST marginally decreased mean service use costs and maintained similar mean Quality Adjusted Life Years compared to CBT. CONCLUSIONS: One Session Treatment has similar clinical effectiveness to CBT for specific phobias in CYP and may be a cost-saving alternative.

One-session treatment compared with multisession CBT in children aged 7-16 years with specific phobias: the ASPECT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Up to 10% of children and young people have a specific phobia that can significantly affect their mental health, development and daily functioning. Cognitive-behavioural therapy-based interventions remain the dominant treatment, but limitations to their provision warrant investigation into low-intensity alternatives. One-session treatment is one such alternative that shares cognitive-behavioural therapy principles but has a shorter treatment period. OBJECTIVE: This research investigated the non-inferiority of one-session treatment to cognitive-behavioural therapy for treating specific phobias in children and young people. The acceptability and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment were examined. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with embedded economic and qualitative evaluations. SETTINGS: There were 26 sites, including 12 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 7-16 years and had a specific phobia defined in accordance with established international clinical criteria. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive one-session treatment or usual-care cognitive-behavioural therapy, and were stratified according to age and phobia severity. Outcome assessors remained blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Behavioural Avoidance Task at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, a goal-based outcome measure, Child Health Utility 9D, EuroQol-5 Dimensions Youth version and resource usage. Treatment fidelity was assessed using the Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Scale for Children and Young People and the One-Session Treatment Rating Scale. RESULTS: A total of 274 participants were recruited, with 268 participants randomised to one-session treatment (n = 134) or cognitive-behavioural therapy (n = 134). A total of 197 participants contributed some data, with 149 participants in the intention-to-treat analysis and 113 in the per-protocol analysis. Mean Behavioural Avoidance Task scores at 6 months were similar across treatment groups when both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were applied [cognitive-behavioural therapy: 7.1 (intention to treat), 7.4 (per protocol); one-session treatment: 7.4 (intention to treat), 7.6 (per protocol); on the standardised scale adjusted mean difference for cognitive-behavioural therapy compared with one-session treatment -0.123, 95% confidence interval -0.449 to 0.202 (intention to treat), mean difference -0.204, 95% confidence interval -0.579 to 0.171 (per protocol)]. These findings were wholly below the standardised non-inferiority limit of 0.4, which suggests that one-session treatment is non-inferior to cognitive-behavioural therapy. No between-group differences in secondary outcome measures were found. The health economics evaluation suggested that, compared with cognitive-behavioural therapy, one-session treatment marginally decreased the mean service use costs and maintained similar mean quality-adjusted life-year improvement. Nested qualitative evaluation found one-session treatment to be considered acceptable by those who received it, their parents/guardians and clinicians. No adverse events occurred as a result of phobia treatment. LIMITATIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic meant that 48 children and young people could not complete the primary outcome measure. Service waiting times resulted in some participants not starting therapy before follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: One-session treatment for specific phobia in UK-based child mental health treatment centres is as clinically effective as multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy and highly likely to be cost-saving. Future work could involve improving the implementation of one-session treatment through training and commissioning of improved care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN19883421. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A phobia is an intense, ongoing fear of an everyday object or situation. The phobia causes distress and the person with the phobia avoids that object or situation. Many children and young people have phobias that affect their daily lives. Cognitive­behavioural therapy helps by changing what people do or think when they have a phobia and is the most common treatment approach. However, cognitive­behavioural therapy is expensive, takes time and is not always easy to get. Different treatments are needed to help children and young people with specific phobias. One such therapy is one-session treatment, which works in similar ways to cognitive­behavioural therapy but takes place over one main 3-hour session. Our study, called ASPECT (Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial), compared these two treatments to examine whether or not one-session treatment is as effective as cognitive­behavioural therapy. Overall, 274 children and young people aged 7­16 years from 26 sites nationally helped with our research, of whom 268 received either cognitive­behavioural therapy or one-session treatment. The results at 6 months found that one-session treatment and cognitive­behavioural therapy worked as well as each other for treating phobias in children and young people. We also found evidence that one-session treatment is cheaper than cognitive­behavioural therapy. We spoke with children and young people, their parents/guardians and the therapists of the single-session treatment, and we found one-session treatment to be acceptable for their needs. Future research could explore how to make one-session treatment more easily available for children and young people with specific phobias because it can save time and money, and works just as well as cognitive­behavioural therapy.

Adapting and validating the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule Version 2 for use with deaf children and young people.

We report a Delphi Consensus modification and first validation study of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule - 2 with deaf children and young people (ADOS-2 Deaf adaptation). Validation included 122 deaf participants (aged 2-18 years), 63 with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). This was compared to a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline standard clinical assessment by blinded independent specialist clinicians. Results showed overall sensitivity 73% (95%CI 60%, 83%); specificity 71% (95%CI 58%, 82%), and for the more common modules 1-3 (combined as in previous studies) sensitivity 79% (95% CI 65-89%); specificity 79% (95% CI 66-89%) suggesting this instrument will be a helpful addition for use with deaf children and young people.

Computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression in adolescents: 12-month outcomes of a UK randomised controlled trial pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (CCBT) in the care pathway has the potential to improve access to psychological therapies and reduce waiting lists within Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, however, more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to assess this. AIMS: This single-centre RCT pilot study compared a CCBT program (Stressbusters) with an attention control (self-help websites) for adolescent depression at referral to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of CCBT (trial registration: ISRCTN31219579). METHOD: The trial ran within community and clinical settings. Adolescents (aged 12-18) presenting to their primary mental health worker service for low mood/depression support were assessed for eligibility at their initial appointment, 139 met inclusion criteria (a 33-item Mood and Feelings Questionnaire score of ≥20) and were randomised to Stressbusters (n = 70) or self-help websites (n = 69) using remote computerised single allocation. Participants completed mood, quality of life (QoL) and resource-use measures at intervention completion, and 4 and 12 months post-intervention. Changes in self-reported measures and completion rates were assessed by group. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between CCBT and the website group at 12 months. Both showed improvements on all measures. QoL measures in the intervention group showed earlier improvement compared with the website group. Costs were lower in the intervention group but the difference was not statistically significant. The cost-effectiveness analysis found just over a 65% chance of Stressbusters being cost-effective compared with websites. The 4-month follow-up results from the initial feasibility study are reported separately. CONCLUSIONS: CCBT and self-help websites may both have a place in the care pathway for adolescents with depression.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment (OST) versus multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for specific phobias in children: protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Specific phobias (intense, enduring fears of an object or situation that lead to avoidance and severe distress) are highly prevalent among children and young people. Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is a well-established, effective intervention, but it can be time consuming and costly because it is routinely delivered over multiple sessions during several months. Alternative methods of treating severe and debilitating phobias in children are needed, like one-session treatment (OST), to reduce time and cost, and to prevent therapeutic drift and help children recover quickly. Our study explores whether (1) outcomes with OST are 'no worse' than outcomes with multisession CBT, (2) OST is acceptable to children, their parents and the practitioners who use it and (3) OST offers good value for money to the National Health Service (NHS) and to society. METHOD: A pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial will compare OST with multisession CBT-based therapy on their clinical and cost-effectiveness. The primary clinical outcome is a standardised behavioural task of approaching the feared stimulus at 6 months postrandomisation. The outcomes for the within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis are quality-adjusted life years based on EQ-5D-Y, and individual-level costs based of the intervention and use of health and social service care. A nested qualitative evaluation will explore children's, parents' and practitioners' perceptions and experiences of OST. A total of 286 children, 7-16 years old, with DSM-IV diagnoses of specific phobia will be recruited via gatekeepers in the NHS, schools and voluntary youth services, and via public adverts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received ethical approval from North East and York Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 17/NE/0012). Dissemination plans include publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations in relevant research conferences, local research symposia and seminars for children and their families, and for professionals and service managers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN19883421;Pre-results.

CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depression (CASPER plus): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible. SETTING: Sixty-nine general practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder. INTERVENTIONS: A low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: In total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care, n = 249; usual care, n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care, n = 198; usual care, n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points; p < 0.001], equivalent to a standard effect size of 0.34. However, treatment differences were not maintained in the longer term (at 12 months: 0.19 score points, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.29 score points; p = 0.741; at 18 months: < 0.01 score points, 95% CI -1.12 to 1.12 score points; p = 0.997). The study recorded details of all serious adverse events (SAEs), which consisted of 'unscheduled hospitalisation', 'other medically important condition' and 'death'. No SAEs were related to the intervention. Collaborative care showed a small but non-significant increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 18-month period, with a higher cost. Overall, the mean cost per incremental QALY for collaborative care compared with usual care was £26,016; however, for participants attending six or more sessions, collaborative care appears to represent better value for money (£9876/QALY). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations are identified at different stages: design (blinding unfeasible, potential contamination), process (relatively low overall consent rate, differential attrition/retention rates) and analysis (no baseline health-care resource cost or secondary/social care data). CONCLUSION: Collaborative care was effective for older people with case-level depression across a range of outcomes in the short term though the reduction in depression severity was not maintained over the longer term of 12 or 18 months. Participants who received six or more sessions of collaborative care did benefit substantially more than those who received fewer treatment sessions but this difference was not statistically significant. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for future research include investigating the longer-term effect of the intervention. Depression is a recurrent disorder and it would be useful to assess its impact on relapse and the prevention of future case-level depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

CollAborative care and active surveillance for Screen-Positive EldeRs with subthreshold depression (CASPER): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce the burden of illness and personal suffering associated with depression in older adults have focused on those with more severe depressive syndromes. Less attention has been paid to those with mild disorders/subthreshold depression, but these patients also suffer significant impairments in their quality of life and level of functioning. There is currently no clear evidence-based guidance regarding treatment for this patient group. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care for primary care older adults who screened positive for subthreshold depression. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with a qualitative study embedded within the pilot. Randomisation occurred after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. SETTING: Thirty-two general practitioner (GP) practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 705 participants aged ≥ 75 years during the pilot phase and ≥ 65 years during the main trial with subthreshold depression. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the intervention group received a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, which included behavioural activation delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual GP care. Control-arm participants received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was a self-reported measure of depression severity, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items PHQ-9 score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder seven-item scale, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale two-item version, a medication questionnaire and objective data. Participants were followed up for 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 705 participants were randomised (collaborative care n = 344, usual care n = 361), with 586 participants (83%; collaborative care 76%, usual care 90%) followed up at 4 months and 519 participants (74%; collaborative care 68%, usual care 79%) followed up at 12 months. Attrition was markedly greater in the collaborative care arm. Model estimates at the primary end point of 4 months revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care compared with usual care [mean difference 1.31 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.95 score points; p < 0.001]. The difference equates to a standard effect size of 0.30, for which the trial was powered. Treatment differences measured by the PHQ-9 were maintained at 12 months' follow-up (mean difference 1.33 score points, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.10 score points; p = 0.001). Base-case cost-effectiveness analysis found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £9633 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). On average, participants allocated to collaborative care displayed significantly higher QALYs than those allocated to the control group (annual difference in adjusted QALYs of 0.044, 95% bias-corrected CI 0.015 to 0.072; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care has been shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective for older adults with subthreshold depression and to reduce the proportion of people who go on to develop case-level depression at 12 months. This intervention could feasibly be delivered in the NHS at an acceptable cost-benefit ratio. Important future work would include investigating the longer-term effect of collaborative care on the CASPER population, which could be conducted by introducing an extension to follow-up, and investigating the impact of collaborative care on managing multimorbidities in people with subthreshold depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02202951. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effect of Collaborative Care vs Usual Care on Depressive Symptoms in Older Adults With Subthreshold Depression: The CASPER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is little evidence to guide management of depressive symptoms in older people. Objective: To evaluate whether a collaborative care intervention can reduce depressive symptoms and prevent more severe depression in older people. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted from May 24, 2011, to November 14, 2014, in 32 primary care centers in the United Kingdom among 705 participants aged 65 years or older with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) subthreshold depression; participants were followed up for 12 months. Interventions: Collaborative care (n=344) was coordinated by a case manager who assessed functional impairments relating to mood symptoms. Participants were offered behavioral activation and completed an average of 6 weekly sessions. The control group received usual primary care (n=361). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was self-reported depression severity at 4-month follow-up on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; score range, 0-27). Included among 10 prespecified secondary outcomes were the PHQ-9 score at 12-month follow-up and the proportion meeting criteria for depressive disorder (PHQ-9 score ≥10) at 4- and 12-month follow-up. Results: The 705 participants were 58% female with a mean age of 77 (SD, 7.1) years. Four-month retention was 83%, with higher loss to follow-up in collaborative care (82/344 [24%]) vs usual care (37/361 [10%]). Collaborative care resulted in lower PHQ-9 scores vs usual care at 4-month follow-up (mean score with collaborative care, 5.36 vs with usual care, 6.67; mean difference, -1.31; 95% CI, -1.95 to -0.67; P < .001). Treatment differences remained at 12 months (mean PHQ-9 score with collaborative care, 5.93 vs with usual care, 7.25; mean difference, -1.33; 95% CI, -2.10 to -0.55). The proportions of participants meeting criteria for depression at 4-month follow-up were 17.2% (45/262) vs 23.5% (76/324), respectively (difference, -6.3% [95% CI, -12.8% to 0.2%]; relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.61-1.27]; P = .25) and at 12-month follow-up were 15.7% (37/235) vs 27.8% (79/284) (difference, -12.1% [95% CI, -19.1% to -5.1%]; relative risk, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.91]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults with subthreshold depression, collaborative care compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms at 4-month follow-up, of uncertain clinical importance. Although differences persisted through 12 months, findings are limited by attrition, and further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN02202951.

Autism Spectrum Social Stories In Schools Trial (ASSSIST): study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial analysing clinical and cost-effectiveness of Social Stories in mainstream schools.

INTRODUCTION: Current evidence suggests that Social Stories can be effective in tackling problem behaviours exhibited by children with autism spectrum disorder. Exploring the meaning of behaviour from a child's perspective allows stories to provide social information that is tailored to their needs. Case reports in children with autism have suggested that these stories can lead to a number of benefits including improvements in social interactions and choice making in educational settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The feasibility of clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Social Stories toolkit will be assessed using a randomised control framework. Participants (n=50) will be randomised to either the Social Stories intervention or a comparator group where they will be read standard stories for an equivalent amount of time. Statistics will be calculated for recruitment rates, follow-up rates and attrition. Economic analysis will determine appropriate measures of generic health and resource use categories for cost-effectiveness analysis. Qualitative analysis will ascertain information on perceptions about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Health Service Ethics Approval (NHS; ref 11/YH/0340) for the trial protocol has been obtained along with NHS Research and Development permission from Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. All adverse events will be closely monitored, documented and reported to the study Data Monitoring Ethics Committee. At least one article in a peer reviewed journal will be published and research findings presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN96286707.