Watch Me Play!: protocol for a feasibility study of a remotely delivered intervention to promote mental health resilience for children (ages 0-8) across UK early years and children's services.

BACKGROUND: Half of mental health problems are established by the age of 14 years and 75% by 24 years. Early intervention and prevention of mental ill health are therefore vitally important. However, increased demand over recent years has meant that access to child mental health services is often restricted to those in severest need. Watch Me Play! (WMP) is an early intervention designed to support caregiver attunement and attention to the child to promote social-emotional well-being and thereby mental health resilience. Originally developed in the context of a local authority mental health service for children in care, it is now also delivered online as a low intensity, scalable, preventative intervention. Although WMP shows promise and is already used in some services, we do not yet know whether it is effective. METHODS: A non-randomised single group feasibility study with embedded process evaluation. We propose to recruit up to 40 parents/carers of children aged 0-8 years who have been referred to early years and children's services in the UK. WMP involves a parent watching the child play and talking to their child about their play (or for babies, observing and following signals) for up to 20 min per session. Some sessions are facilitated by a trained practitioner who provides prompts where necessary, gives feedback, and discusses the child's play with the caregiver. Services will offer five facilitated sessions, and parents will be asked to do at least 10 additional sessions on their own with their child in a 5-week period. Feasibility outcomes examined are as follows: (i) recruitment, (ii) retention, (iii) adherence, (iv) fidelity of delivery, (v) barriers and facilitators of participation, (vi) intervention acceptability, (vii) description of usual care, and (viii) data collection procedures. Intervention mechanisms will be examined through qualitative interview data. Economic evaluation will be conducted estimating cost of the intervention and cost of service use for child and parents/carers quality-adjusted life years. DISCUSSION: This study will address feasibility questions associated with progression to a future randomised trial of WMP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13644899 . Registered on 14th April 2023.

Exploring critical intervention features and trial processes in the evaluation of sensory integration therapy for autistic children.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of manualised sensory integration therapy (SIT) for autistic children with sensory processing difficulties in a two-arm randomised controlled trial. Trial processes and contextual factors which may have affected intervention outcomes were explored within a nested process evaluation. This paper details the process evaluation methods and results. We also discuss implications for evaluation of individual level, tailored interventions in similar populations. METHODS: The process evaluation was conducted in line with Medical Research Council guidance. Recruitment, demographics, retention, adherence, and adverse effects are reported using descriptive statistics. Fidelity of intervention delivery is reported according to the intervention scoring manual. Qualitative interviews with therapists and carers were undertaken to explore the acceptability of the intervention and trial processes. Qualitative interviews with carers explored potential contamination. RESULTS: Recruitment, reach and retention within the trial met expected thresholds. One hundred thirty-eight children and carers were recruited (92% of those screened and 53.5% of those who expressed an interest) with 77.5% retained at 6 months and 69.9% at 12 months post-randomisation. The intervention was delivered with structural and process fidelity with the majority (78.3%) receiving a 'sufficient dose' of intervention. However, there was considerable individual variability in the receipt of sessions. Carers and therapists reported that trial processes were generally acceptable though logistical challenges such as appointment times, travel and COVID restrictions were frequent barriers to receiving the intervention. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The process evaluation was highly valuable in identifying contextual factors that could impact the effectiveness of this individualised intervention. Rigorous evaluations of interventions for autistic children are important, especially given the limitations such as limited sample sizes and short-term follow-up as faced by previous research. One of the challenges lies in the variability of outcomes considered important by caregivers, as each autistic child faces unique challenges. It is crucial to consider the role of parents or other caregivers in facilitating access to these interventions and how this may impact effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14716440. August 11, 2016.

Digital adaptation of the Standing up for Myself intervention in young people and adults with intellectual disabilities: the STORM feasibility study.

Background: Stigma contributes to the negative social conditions persons with intellectual disabilities are exposed to, and it needs tackling at multiple levels. Standing Up for Myself is a psychosocial group intervention designed to enable individuals with intellectual disabilities to discuss stigmatising encounters in a safe and supportive setting and to increase their self-efficacy in managing and resisting stigma. Objectives: To adapt Standing Up for Myself to make it suitable as a digital intervention; to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of Digital Standing Up for Myself and online administration of outcome measures in a pilot; to describe usual practice in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic to inform future evaluation. Design: Adaptation work followed by a single-arm pilot of intervention delivery. Setting and participants: Four third and education sector organisations. Individuals with mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities, aged 16+, members of existing groups, with access to digital platforms. Intervention: Digital Standing Up for Myself intervention. Adapted from face-to-face Standing Up for Myself intervention, delivered over four weekly sessions, plus a 1-month follow-up session. Outcomes: Acceptability and feasibility of delivering Digital Standing Up for Myself and of collecting outcome and health economic measures at baseline and 3 months post baseline. Outcomes are mental well-being, self-esteem, self-efficacy in rejecting prejudice, reactions to discrimination and sense of social power. Results: Adaptation to the intervention required changes to session duration, group size and number of videos; otherwise, the content remained largely the same. Guidance was aligned with digital delivery methods and a new group member booklet was produced. Twenty-two participants provided baseline data. The intervention was started by 21 participants (four groups), all of whom were retained at 3 months. Group facilitators reported delivering the intervention as feasible and suggested some refinements. Fidelity of the intervention was good, with over 90% of key components observed as implemented by facilitators. Both facilitators and group members reported the intervention to be acceptable. Group members reported subjective benefits, including increased confidence, pride and knowing how to deal with difficult situations. Digital collection of all outcome measures was feasible and acceptable, with data completeness ≥ 95% for all measures at both time points. Finally, a picture of usual practice has been developed as an intervention comparator for a future trial. Limitations: The pilot sample was small. It remains unclear whether participants would be willing to be randomised to a treatment as usual arm or whether they could be retained for 12 months follow-up. Conclusions: The target number of groups and participants were recruited, and retention was good. It is feasible and acceptable for group facilitators with some training and supervision to deliver Digital Standing Up for Myself. Further optimisation of the intervention is warranted. Future work: To maximise the acceptability and reach of the intervention, a future trial could offer the adapted Digital Standing Up for Myself, potentially alongside the original face-to-face version of the intervention. Study registration: This study was registered as ISRCTN16056848. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/149/03) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People with intellectual disabilities (or 'learning disabilities' in United Kingdom language) are more likely to experience poor physical and mental health than the general population. Stigma (negative stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination) has been linked to lower self-esteem, quality of life, and mental and physical ill health. Efforts to empower people with intellectual disabilities themselves to challenge stigma with a view to improving well-being, health and self-esteem are lacking. In 2017, we developed Standing Up for Myself, a brief group-based programme for people with mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities aged 16+ to address this gap. As this study got underway, face-to-face meetings were suspended due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We used the opportunity to assess whether Standing Up for Myself could be delivered through web-based meetings. We adapted Standing Up for Myself for digital delivery, with close input from advisors with intellectual disabilities and experienced group facilitators. We then tested the digital version in charity and education settings to evaluate if Digital Standing Up for Myself could be delivered as planned and how acceptable it was to group facilitators and participants. Four groups, with a total of 22 members, signed up to try Digital Standing Up for Myself. One participant dropped out before starting Standing Up for Myself, and the other 21 continued until the end of the programme. Retention and attendance were good; participants on average attended four of the five sessions. Ninety per cent of the core programme requirements were fully delivered as detailed in the Digital Standing Up for Myself manual. Problems with technology were manageable, although facilitators found using the Standing Up for Myself Wiki platform (an online platform for storage and sharing of resources) difficult, particularly when sharing video content. Facilitators felt acceptable levels of privacy were achieved and there were no reports of undue distress. All facilitators and many group members said they would recommend Digital Standing Up for Myself to others. Group members shared how the programme benefitted them, noting increased awareness about disabilities, and for some increased confidence, pride and independence. Some had learnt how to stand up for themselves and manage difficult situations and took pride in this. Completing outcome and health cost measures via web-based meetings was acceptable and data were largely fully complete and useable.

Exploring the issues that influence how people with rare neurological conditions engage in physical activity.

PURPOSE: People with rare neurological conditions (RNCs) struggle to achieve regular physical activity (PA). This study explored experiences of people with RNC engaging in PA, their carers, and health care professionals (HCPs) working with them. MATERIALS & METHODS: We developed three surveys: for individuals living with RNCs, their carers, and HCPs working with them. Themes from interviews with RNC charity representatives were used to co-design questions, together with people living with RNCs, their representatives, and an expert panel. Surveys were disseminated via charity mailing lists, social media accounts, and professional networks (HCPs). RESULTS: We received 436 responses (225 people with RNC, 94 carers, 117 HCPs). Most respondents with RNC achieved some level of regular PA but needed motivation to maintain it. Many felt they lacked knowledge on starting and staying active, with scarce resources and support. Most HCP respondents worked in specialist services, and overwhelmingly agreed that people with RNC should be physically active, while acknowledging lack of evidence and resources. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key barriers at environmental/organisational, interpersonal, and intrapersonal levels, highlighting a critical lack of support for people with RNC across UK health services. These factors can be targeted to increase engagement in PA.Implications for rehabilitationPeople living with rare neurological conditions experience barriers to engaging in physical activity, with some common to more prevalent neurological diseases, e.g. access and facilities, but some notable differences due to the rarity of the conditionFor people living with rare neurological conditions, and their carers, there is a lack of knowledge on safe and appropriate engagement in physical activityIncreasing the knowledge of health and exercise professionals may improve how they support people with rare neurological disease to engage with physical activity.Evidence based resources and recommendations for people living with rare neurological conditions, and professionals working with them, may facilitate engagement in physical activity.

Further development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of a digital programme for adolescent depression, MoodHwb: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: A digital programme, MoodHwb, was codesigned with young people experiencing or at high risk of depression, parents/carers and professionals, to provide support for young people with their mood and well-being. A preliminary evaluation study provided support for the programme theory and found that MoodHwb was acceptable to use. This study aims to refine the programme based on user feedback, and to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the updated version and study methods. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Initially, this study will refine MoodHwb with the involvement of young people, including in a pretrial acceptability phase. This will be followed by a multicentre feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing MoodHwb plus usual care with a digital information pack plus usual care. Up to 120 young people aged 13-19 years with symptoms of depression and their parents/carers will be recruited through schools, mental health services, youth services, charities and voluntary self-referral in Wales and Scotland. The primary outcomes are the feasibility and acceptability of the MoodHwb programme (including usage, design and content) and of trial methods (including recruitment and retention rates), assessed 2 months postrandomisation. Secondary outcomes include potential impact on domains including depression knowledge and stigma, help-seeking, well-being and depression and anxiety symptoms measured at 2 months postrandomisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The pretrial acceptability phase was approved by the Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (REC) and the University of Glasgow College of Medicine, Veterinary and Life Sciences REC. The trial was approved by Wales NHS REC 3 (21/WA/0205), the Health Research Authority(HRA), Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW), university health board Research and Development (R&D) departments in Wales, and schools in Wales and Scotland. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed open-access journals, at conferences and meetings, and online to academic, clinical, and educational audiences and the wider public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12437531.

Standing up for Myself (STORM): Adapting and piloting a web-delivered psychosocial group intervention for people with intellectual disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Our STORM intervention was developed for people (16 +) with intellectual disabilities to enhance their capacity to manage and resist stigma. The current study describes the adaptation of STORM for (synchronous) on-line delivery in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. AIMS: To adapt the manualised face-to-face STORM group intervention for delivery via web-based meeting platforms and to conduct an initial pilot study to consider its acceptability and feasibility. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The 5-session STORM intervention was carefully adapted for online delivery. In a pilot study with four community groups (N = 22), outcome, health economics and attendance data were collected, and fidelity of delivery assessed. Focus groups with participants, and interviews with facilitators provided data on acceptability and feasibility. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: The intervention was adapted with minimal changes to the content required. In the pilot study, 95% of participants were retained at follow-up, 91% attended at least three of the five sessions. Outcome measure completion and fidelity were excellent, and facilitators reported implementation to be feasible. The intervention was reported to be acceptable by participants. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: When provided with the necessary resources and support, people with intellectual disabilities participate actively in web-delivered group interventions.

Sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory processing difficulties: the SenITA RCT.

BACKGROUND: Carers report unmet need for occupational therapy services addressing sensory difficulties in autism, yet insufficient evidence exists to recommend a therapeutic approach. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory difficulties across behavioural, functional and quality-of-life outcomes. DESIGN: We carried out a parallel-group randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and a process evaluation. Randomisation utilised random permuted blocks. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Children were recruited via services and self-referral in Wales and England. Inclusion criteria were having an autism diagnosis, being in mainstream primary education and having definite/probable sensory processing difficulties. Exclusion criteria were having current/previous sensory integration therapy and current applied behaviour analysis therapy. INTERVENTION: The intervention was manualised sensory integration therapy delivered over 26 weeks and the comparator was usual care. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was problem behaviours (determined using the Aberrant Behavior Checklist), including irritability/agitation, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were adaptive behaviour, functioning and socialisation (using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales); carer stress (measured using the Autism Parenting Stress Index); quality of life (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and Carer Quality of Life); functional change (according to the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure); sensory processing (determined using the Sensory Processing Measure™ at screening and at 6 months to examine mediation effects); and cost-effectiveness (assessed using the Client Service Receipt Inventory). Every effort was made to ensure that outcome assessors were blind to allocation. RESULTS: A total of 138 participants were randomised (n = 69 per group). Usual care was significantly different from the intervention, which was delivered with good fidelity and adherence and minimal contamination, and was associated with no adverse effects. Trial procedures and outcome measures were acceptable. Carers and therapists reported improvement in daily functioning. The primary analysis included 106 participants. There were no significant main effects of the intervention at 6 or 12 months. The adjusted mean difference between groups on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist - irritability at 6 months post randomisation was 0.40 (95% confidence interval -2.33 to 3.14; p = 0.77). Subgroup differences in irritability/agitation at 6 months were observed for sex of child (intervention × female = 6.42, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 12.85; p = 0.050) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (intervention × attention deficit hyperactivity disorder = -6.77, 95% confidence interval -13.55 to -0.01; p = 0.050). There was an effect on carer stress at 6 months by region (intervention × South England = 7.01, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 13.56; p = 0.04) and other neurodevelopmental/genetic conditions (intervention × neurodevelopmental/genetic condition = -9.53, 95% confidence interval -18.08 to -0.98; p = 0.030). Carer-rated goal performance and satisfaction increased across sessions (p < 0.001), with a mean change of 2.75 (95% confidence interval 2.14 to 3.37) for performance and a mean change of 3.34 (95% confidence interval 2.63 to 4.40) for satisfaction. Health economic evaluation suggests that sensory integration therapy is not cost-effective compared with usual care alone. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included variability of the intervention setting (i.e. NHS vs. private), delay for some receiving therapy, an error in administration of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and no measurement of comparator arm goal performance. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not demonstrate clinical benefit above standard care. Subgroup effects are hypothesis-generating only. The intervention is likely to be effective for individualised performance goals, although it is unclear whether effects were in addition to standard care or were maintained. FUTURE WORK: Further investigation of subgroup effects is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14716440. 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. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Children with autism often experience problems with processing sensory information (e.g. noise, touch, movement, taste and sight), and this can lead to problems in daily life. This study was designed to see if sensory integration therapy can help children with these difficulties. Sensory integration therapy is a type of face-to-face play-based treatment that is delivered by occupational therapists. We compared sensory integration therapy with the type of treatment normally offered to children with autism (i.e. 'usual care'). We recruited children and their carers from Wales and England. Children could take part in the study if they had an autism diagnosis, had sensory processing difficulties and were in mainstream primary education. The children taking part in the study were randomly split into two groups. Sixty-nine children were given sensory integration therapy and 69 children carried on with their usual care. The sensory integration therapy involved 24 face-to-face sessions in an occupational therapy clinic, followed by two telephone calls with the carer. The sensory integration therapy lasted for 26 weeks. We collected information on the type of care being given to children in the usual-care group. Carers of each child were asked questions about their child's behaviour 6 and 12 months after starting the study. Some carers also completed an interview to talk about what it was like taking part in the study. Therapists delivered the sensory integration therapy well. Carers and therapists said that they saw some improvements. However, sensory integration therapy was not significantly better than the usual care and is a more expensive option. We cannot say that sensory integration therapy is helpful for all children with autism and different sensory processing difficulties; however, it might be helpful for some children to focus on specific problems. Future work could focus on which children and problems it would help the most.

Understanding the support experiences of families of children with autism and sensory processing difficulties: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Support, such as information, advice and therapies, can play a vital role in the lives of families of autistic children. However, little is known about the support experiences of UK parents and carers. AIM: To explore experiences of and access to support for families of children with autism and sensory processing difficulties, from the perspective of parents and carers. METHODS: Semi-structured, timeline-assisted interviews were conducted with parents/carers of 30 children aged 5-11, exploring experiences of support. Framework analysis was used to identify themes in the interview data. RESULTS: Support varied widely and was not accessed equitably. Specialist autism support, together with support from other parents and voluntary organizations, was perceived as more useful than statutory and nonspecialist provision. Unmet support needs included an ongoing point of contact for information and advice for parents, and access to direct therapy and specialist mental health provision for children. CONCLUSIONS: Findings emphasize the need for a clear pathway of support following autism diagnosis, autism-specific training for professional service providers and specialist provision tailored to the needs of autistic children. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: An advisory group of four parents of children with autism provided feedback on study procedures and materials, including participant information sheets and timeline completion instructions.

Moving on trial: protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of models of housing and support to reduce risks of COVID-19 infection and homelessness.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that around 160,000 households in Britain experience homelessness each year, although no definitive statistics exist. Between March and September 2020, as part of the initial 'Everyone In' government response to COVID-19 in England, 10,566 people were living in emergency accommodation and nearly 18,911 people had been moved into settled accommodation. However, some forms of temporary accommodation may not be suitable as shared facilities make it impossible for people to adhere to government guidelines to reduce the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: This is parallel group, pilot randomised controlled trial. The target is to recruit three local authorities, each of which will recruit 50 participants (thus a total of approximately 150 participants). Individuals are eligible if they are aged 18 and over, in a single-person homeless household, temporarily accommodated by the LA with recourse to public funds. Participants will be randomised to receive settled accommodation (intervention group) or temporary accommodation (control group). The intervention group includes settled housing such as Private Rented Sector (low and medium support), Social Housing (low and medium support), and Housing First (High support). The control group will maintain treatment as usual. The follow-up period will last 6 months. The primary outcome is to assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention, and acceptability of trial processes against progression criteria laid out in a traffic light system (green: all criteria are met, the trial should progress as designed in this pilot; amber: the majority of criteria are met and with adaptations to methods all criteria could be met; red: the minority of criteria are met and the pilot RCT should not proceed). Secondary outcomes include assessment of completeness of data collection at 3 and 6 months and percentage of participants consenting to data linkage, as well as a process evaluation and economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: This trial will address feasibility questions associated with progression to a fully powered effectiveness trial of models of housing to reduce risk of COVID-19 infection and homelessness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN69564614 . Registered on December 16, 2020.

Process evaluation in intellectual disability research: A case study and the need for adaptation of frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Involving adults with cognitive impairments, and specifically intellectual disability, in research is critical to developing appropriate and effective interventions but is highly challenging. Our aim was to examine where complexities lie in delivering research in underrepresented and hard to reach populations using an exemplar process evaluation conducted as part of a drug reduction trial. METHODS: Quantitative methods were used to assess recruitment, adherence to the intervention and safety data. Qualitative interviews examined non-efficacy based barriers to drug reduction in clinical practice. RESULTS: Feasibility of carrying out a drug reduction trial was limited by a lack of exploration of acceptability. Barriers to successful delivery included concerns around wider care team co-operation and consent procedures. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to consider interventions involving adults with cognitive impairment, and particularly intellectual disability, as complex. Current process evaluation frameworks require further adaptation to guide research and innovation in these populations.

Lifestyle, exercise and activity package for people living with progressive multiple sclerosis (LEAP-MS): protocol for a single-arm feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: We have co-designed a tailored blended physiotherapy intervention for people with progressive multiple sclerosis (PwPMS) who often struggle to access support for physical activity. Underpinned by self-management principles, the Lifestyle, Exercise and Activity Package for people with Multiple Sclerosis (LEAP-MS) intervention incorporates face-to-face or online physiotherapy coaching sessions with an accompanying online physical activity platform. The LEAP-MS platform is a multi-user system enabling user and physiotherapist to co-create activity plans. The LEAP-MS platform consists of an information and activity suite, interactive components enabling selection of exercises into an activity programme, goal setting and activity logging. The platform also facilitates online remote support from a physiotherapist through an embedded online messaging function. We aim to evaluate the LEAP-MS platform in a feasibility trial. METHODS: LEAP-MS will be evaluated within a single-arm feasibility study with embedded process evaluation. After registration and initial eligible screening, 21 participants will be required to complete baseline self-completion measures. This will be followed by an initial home-based or online coaching session with a physiotherapist (who has received tailored self-management and digital resource training) and access to the online intervention for an initial 3-month period. During this period, participants are given the option to request up to five further home-based or online physiotherapy coaching sessions. Follow-up questionnaires and semi-structured interviews will be administered 3 months after baseline with participants and intervention physiotherapists. The LEAP-MS platform will be available to participants for a further 3 months. Usage of the LEAP-MS platform will be tracked during the full 6-month period and final follow-up will be conducted 6 months after baseline. DISCUSSION: Feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention, intervention uptake and safety) will be reported. The process evaluation will be undertaken to identify possible mechanisms for any observed effects. The data will inform full-scale evaluations of this co-produced, blended physiotherapy intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03951181 . Registered 15 May 2019.

Protocol for an open label: phase I trial within a cohort of foetal cell transplants in people with Huntington's disease.

Huntington's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor, cognitive and psychiatric symptoms. Currently, no disease-modifying therapies are available to slow or halt disease progression. Huntington's disease is characterized by relatively focal and specific loss of striatal medium spiny neurons, which makes it suitable for cell-replacement therapy, a process involving the transplantation of donor cells to replace those lost due to disease. TRIal DEsigns for delivery of Novel Therapies in neurodegeneration is a phase I Trial Within a Cohort designed to assess safety and feasibility of transplanting human foetal striatal cells into the striatum of people with Huntington's disease. A minimum of 18 participants will be enrolled in the study cohort, and up to five eligible participants will be randomly selected to undergo transplantation of 12-22 million foetal cells in a dose escalation paradigm. Independent reviewers will assess safety outcomes (lack of significant infection, bleeding or new neurological deficit) 4 weeks after surgery, and ongoing safety will be established before conducting each subsequent surgery. All participants will undergo detailed clinical and functional assessment at baseline (6 and 12 months). Surgery will be performed 1 month after baseline, and transplant participants will undergo regular clinical follow-up for at least 12 months. Evaluation of trial processes will also be undertaken. Transplant participants and their carers will be interviewed ∼1 month before and after surgery. Interviews will also be conducted with non-transplanted participants and healthcare staff delivering the intervention and involved in the clinical care of participants. Evaluation of clinical and functional efficacy outcomes and intervention costs will be carried out to explore plausible trial designs for subsequent randomized controlled trials aimed at evaluating efficacy and cost-effectiveness of cell-replacement therapy. TRIal DEsigns for delivery of Novel Therapies in neurodegeneration will enable the assessment of the safety, feasibility, acceptability and cost of foetal cell transplants in people with Huntington's disease. The data collected will inform trial designs for complex intra-cranial interventions in a range of neurodegenerative conditions and facilitate the development of stable surgical pipelines for delivery of future stem cell trials. Trial Registration: ISRCTN52651778.

Proposing a Core Outcome Set for Physical Activity and Exercise Interventions in People With Rare Neurological Conditions.

Rare neurological conditions (RNCs) encompass a variety of diseases that differ in progression and symptoms but typically include muscle weakness, sensory and balance impairment and difficulty with coordinating voluntary movement. This can limit overall physical activity, so interventions to address this are recommended. The aim of this study was to agree a core outcome measurement set for physical activity interventions in people living with RNCs. We followed established guidelines to develop core outcome sets. Broad ranging discussions in a series of stakeholder workshops led to the consensus that (1) physical well-being; (2) psychological well-being and (3) participation in day-to-day activities should be evaluated in interventions. Recommendations were further informed by a scoping review of physical activity interventions for people living with RNCs. Nearly 200 outcome measures were identified from the review with a specific focus on activities or functions (e.g, on lower limb function, ability to perform daily tasks) but limited consideration of participation based outcomes (e.g., social interaction, work and leisure). Follow on searches identified two instruments that matched the priority areas: the Oxford Participation and Activities Questionnaire and the Sources of Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity. We propose these scales as measures to assess outcomes that are particularly relevant to assess when evaluating physical activity interventions mong people with RNCs. Validation work across rare neurological conditions is now required to inform application of this core outcome set in future clinical trials to facilitate syntheses of results and meta-analyses.

Barriers and facilitators to primary health care for people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: an integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Globally, people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism experience health inequalities. Death occurs at a younger age and the prevalence of long-term morbidities is higher than in the general population. Despite this, their primary healthcare access rates are lower than the general population, their health needs are often unmet, and their views and experiences are frequently overlooked in research, policy, and practice. AIM: To investigate the barriers and facilitators reported by individuals with intellectual disabilities, autism, or both, and/or their carers, to accessing and utilising primary health care for their physical and mental health needs. DESIGN & SETTING: An integrative review was undertaken, which used systematic review methodology. METHOD: Electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Cochrane were searched for relevant studies (all languages) using a search strategy. Two researchers independently screened the results and assessed the quality of the studies. RESULTS: Sixty-three international studies were identified. Six main themes relating to barriers and facilitators emerged from an analysis of these studies. The main themes were: training; knowledge and awareness; communication; fear and embarrassment; involvement in healthcare decision-making; and time. All the themes were underpinned by the need for greater care, dignity, respect, collaborative relationships, and reasonable adjustments. Opposing barriers and facilitators were identified within each of the main themes. CONCLUSION: Adolescents and adults with intellectual disabilities and/or autism experience several barriers to accessing and utilising primary health care. The findings highlight the reasonable adjustments and facilitators that can be implemented to ensure that these individuals are not excluded from primary health care.

Trainer and support staff's experiences of engaging with the Who's Challenging Who? challenging behaviour training course.

BACKGROUND: The Who's Challenging Who? (WCW) training is coproduced and delivered by people with intellectual disabilities (IDs), and it aims to improve staff empathy for people with challenging behaviour (CB). This study qualitatively describes trainees' and trainers' experiences of the WCW. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with managers (n = 7), support staff (n = 6) and the WCW trainers (n = 4; three had IDs). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two cross-cutting themes were drawn from the data: (1) valued roles of the trainers, whereby trainers and trainees benefited from the training being coproduced and delivered by people with IDs, and (2) beyond the training, within which trainees reported that they were engaging in increased reflection about their past and current practice. CONCLUSIONS: Being trained by people with IDs and CB appears to be a useful method, which can lead to perspective taking and reflection about supporting people with IDs and CB.

Sensory integration therapy versus usual care for sensory processing difficulties in autism spectrum disorder in children: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a common lifelong condition affecting 1 in 100 people. ASD affects how a person relates to others and the world around them. Difficulty responding to sensory information (noise, touch, movement, taste, sight) is common, and might include feeling overwhelmed or distressed by loud or constant low-level noise (e.g. in the classroom). Affected children may also show little or no response to these sensory cues. These 'sensory processing difficulties' are associated with behaviour and socialisation problems, and affect education, relationships, and participation in daily life. Sensory integration therapy (SIT) is a face-to-face therapy or treatment provided by trained occupational therapists who use play-based sensory-motor activities and the just-right challenge to influence the way the child responds to sensation, reducing distress, and improving motor skills, adaptive responses, concentration, and interaction with others. With limited research into SIT, this protocol describes in detail how the intervention will be defined and evaluated. METHODS: This is a two-arm pragmatic individually 1:1 randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot of SIT versus usual care for primary school aged children (aged 4 to 11 years) with ASD and sensory processing difficulties; 216 children will be recruited from multiple sources. Therapy will be delivered in clinics meeting full fidelity criteria for manualised SIT over 26 weeks (face-to-face sessions: two per week for 10 weeks, two per month for 2 months; telephone call: one per month for 2 months). Follow-up assessments will be completed at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. Prior to recruitment, therapists will be invited to participate in focus groups/interviews to explore what is delivered as usual care in trial regions; carers will be invited to complete an online survey to map out their experience of services. Following recruitment, carers will be given diaries to record their contact with services. Following intervention, carer and therapist interviews will be completed. DISCUSSION: Results of this trial will provide high-quality evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of SIT aimed at improving behavioural, functional, social, educational, and well-being outcomes for children and well-being outcomes for carers and families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14716440 . Registered on 8 November 2016.

Is the amount of exposure to aggressive challenging behaviour related to staff work-related well-being in intellectual disability services? Evidence from a clustered research design.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has demonstrated an association between aggressive challenging behaviour (CB) and reductions in work-related well-being for intellectual disability (ID) support staff. Much of this research has used subjective measures of CB. AIMS: To examine whether exposure to aggressive CB is associated with reduced work-related well-being in staff working in ID residential settings across the UK. METHODS AND PROCEDURE: A cross-sectional analysis was undertaken as part of a randomised trial; 186 staff from 100 settings completed questionnaires on their CB self-efficacy, empathy, positive work motivation, and burnout. Objective measures of aggressive CB in the preceding 16 weeks were collected from each setting. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: There was little association between staff exposure to aggressive CB and work-related well-being. Clustering effects were found for emotional exhaustion and positive work motivation, suggesting these variables are more likely to be influenced by the environment in which staff work. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The level of clustering may be key to understanding how to support staff working in ID residential settings, and should be explored further. Longitudinal data, and studies including a comparison of staff working in ID services without aggressive CB exposure are needed to fully understand any association between aggressive CB and staff well-being.

Current practices in clinical neurofeedback with functional MRI-Analysis of a survey using the TIDieR checklist.

BACKGROUND: A core principle of creating a scientific evidence base is that results can be replicated in independent experiments and in health intervention research. The TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist has been developed to aid in summarising key items needed when reporting clinical trials and other well designed evaluations of complex interventions in order that findings can be replicated or built on reliably. Neurofeedback (NF) using functional MRI (fMRI) is a multicomponent intervention that should be considered a complex intervention. The TIDieR checklist (with minor modification to increase applicability in this context) was distributed to NF researchers as a survey of current practice in the design and conduct of clinical studies. The aim was to document practice and convergence between research groups, highlighting areas for discussion and providing a basis for recommendations for harmonisation and standardisation. METHODS: The TIDieR checklist was interpreted and expanded (21 questions) to make it applicable to neurofeedback research studies. Using the web-based Bristol Online Survey (BOS) tool, the revised checklist was disseminated to researchers in the BRAINTRAIN European research collaborative network (supported by the European Commission) and others in the fMRI-neurofeedback community. RESULTS: There were 16 responses to the survey. Responses were reported under eight main headings which covered the six domains of the TIDieR checklist: What, Why, When, How, Where and Who. CONCLUSIONS: This piece of work provides encouraging insight into the ability to be able to map neuroimaging interventions to a structured framework for reporting purposes. Regardless of the considerable variability of design components, all studies could be described in standard terms of diagnostic groups, dose/duration, targeted areas/signals, and psychological strategies and learning models. Recommendations are made which include providing detailed rationale of intervention design in study protocols.

Effectiveness of the 'Who's Challenging Who' support staff training intervention to improve attitudes and empathy towards adults with intellectual disability and challenging behaviours: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Findings suggest approximately one in six people with intellectual disability engage in 'challenging behaviours', which include aggression towards others/property and self-injurious actions. In residential settings, actions of staff members can make challenging behaviours more likely to occur, or make these behaviours worse. In particular, negative attitudes from members of staff and lack of understanding about the reasons for challenging behaviour are contributory factors. 'Who's Challenging Who?' (WCW) training is designed to emphasise the role of staff in residential settings as a challenge also to people with intellectual disability. The course is delivered jointly by a trainer with intellectual disability who has been labelled as having challenging behaviour, along with a trainer without intellectual disability. METHODS: This is a cluster randomised two-arm trial of WCW training versus a waiting list control. Overall, 118 residential settings will be recruited and randomised on a 1:1 ratio. Within each setting, two members of staff will be invited to take part in the trial. Participants will complete assessments at baseline and at 6 and 20 weeks. WCW is a half day initial training course with some follow-on coaching to ensure implementation. The primary outcome is changes in staff empathy towards people with challenging behaviour. Secondary outcomes at the staff level include confidence, attitudes and work-related well-being. Secondary outcomes at the residential setting level include recorded incidents of aggressive challenging behaviour, and use of any restrictive practices. DISCUSSION: If the results of the cluster randomised trial are positive, we will disseminate the findings widely and make all training manuals and materials freely available for anyone in intellectual disability services (and beyond) to use. Our training approach may have wider implications in other areas of social care. It may also provide a generally applicable model for how to train people with intellectual disability to act as co-trainers in intellectual disability social care settings. People with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour have already been involved centrally with the design, development and pilot evaluation of WCW and will also be fully involved throughout this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry on 8th December 2015: ISRCTN53763600 .

A pilot randomised controlled trial of community-led ANtipsychotic Drug REduction for Adults with Learning Disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that approximately 50,000 adults with learning disabilities (LDs) in England and Wales are currently prescribed antipsychotic medication. Illness in this population is common, including significant rates of challenging behaviour and mental illness, but there is particular concern over the use of antipsychotics prescribed for reasons other than the treatment of psychosis. Control of challenging behaviour is the primary reason why such medications are prescribed despite the absence of good evidence for any therapeutic effect for this purpose. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of recruitment and retention and to explore non-efficacy-based barriers to a blinded antipsychotic medication withdrawal programme for adults with LDs without psychosis compared with treatment as usual. A secondary objective was to compare trial arms regarding clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A two-arm individually randomised double-blind placebo-controlled drug reduction trial. SETTING: Recruitment was through community learning disability teams (CLDTs) in south Wales and south-west England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with LDs who are prescribed risperidone for treatment of challenging behaviour with no known current psychosis or previous recurrence of psychosis following prior drug reduction. INTERVENTION: A double-blind drug reduction programme leading to full withdrawal within 6 months. Treatment in the intervention group was gradually reduced over a 6-month period and then maintained at the same level for a further 3 months, still under blind conditions. In the control group, the baseline level of medication was maintained throughout the 9-month period. The blind was broken at 9 months, following final data collection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility outcomes were (1) the number and proportion of general practices/CLDTs that progressed from initial approach to recruitment of participants and (2) the number and proportion of recruited participants who progressed through the various stages of the study. Trial arms were also compared regarding clinical outcomes, the Modified Overt Aggression Scale, the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist, the Psychiatric Assessment Schedule for Adults with Developmental Disability checklist, the Antipsychotic Side-effect Checklist, the Dyskinesia Identification System Condensed User Scale, the Client Service Receipt Inventory, use of other interventions to manage challenging behaviour, use of as-required (pro re nata) medication and level of psychotropic medication use. RESULTS: Of the 22 participants randomised (intervention, n = 11; control, n = 11), 13 (59%) achieved progression through all four stages of reduction. Follow-up data at 6 and 9 months were obtained for 17 participants (intervention, n = 10; and control, n = 7; 77% of those randomised). There were no clinically important changes in participants' levels of aggression or challenging behaviour at the end of the study. There were no expedited safety reports. Four adverse events and one serious adverse event were reported during the trial. LIMITATIONS: Recruitment was challenging, which was largely a result of difficulty in identifying appropriate persons to consent and carer concerns regarding re-emergence of challenging behaviour. Reduced recruitment meant that the full trial became an exploratory pilot study. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that drug reduction is possible and safe. However, concerns about taking part were probably exacerbated by limited availability of alternative (behavioural) interventions to manage behaviour; therefore, focused support and alternative interventions are required. The results of the qualitative study provide important insights into the experiences of people taking part in drug reduction studies that should influence future trial development. FUTURE WORK: We recommend that further work focuses on support for practitioners, carers and patients in reducing antipsychotic medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38126962. 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. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.