Behavioural interventions to treat anxiety in adults with autism and moderate to severe intellectual disabilities: The BEAMS-ID feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this feasibility study was to adapt and model a behavioural intervention for anxiety with autistic adults with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. METHOD: Twenty-eight autistic adults with moderate or severe intellectual disabilities, 37 carers, and 40 therapists took part in this single-group non-randomised feasibility study designed to test intervention feasibility and acceptability, outcome measures, and research processes. RESULTS: The intervention was judged as feasible and acceptable by autistic adults with intellectual disabilities, carers, and therapists. Minor intervention revisions were suggested. Carers completed 100% of outcome measures and the missing data rate was low. Complying with legislation governing the inclusion of participants who lack capacity to decide whether they wanted to take part in this study led to an average 5-week enrolment delay. CONCLUSION: The intervention and associated study processes were judged to be feasible and acceptable and should now be tested within a larger randomised trial.

Psychological therapies for people with intellectual disabilities: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020169323) was to evaluate the efficacy of psychological therapy for people with intellectual disabilities. METHOD: A comprehensive literature search yielded 22,444 studies which were screened for eligibility. Studies were eligible for inclusion if a psychological therapy was delivered to people with intellectual disabilities compared to a group who did not receive the therapy. Thirty-three controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the review, with 19 included within a DerSimonian-Laird random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was completed by clinical presentation, and by comparing randomised trials to non-randomised trials, and group-based to individually delivered psychotherapy. RESULTS: Following the removal of outliers, psychological therapy for a range of mental health problems was associated with a small and significant effect size, g = 0.43, 95% CI [0.20, 0.67], N = 698. There was evidence of heterogeneity and bias due to studies with small sample sizes and a lack of randomisation. Non-randomised studies were associated with a large effect size, g = 0.90, 95% CI [0.47, 1.32], N = 174, while randomised studies were associated with a small effect size, g = 0.36, 95% CI [0.17, 0.55], N = 438, excluding outliers. Individually delivered psychological therapy was associated with a small and non-significant effect size, g = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.65], N = 146, while group-based interventions were associated with a small and significant effect size, g = 0.37, 95% CI [0.05, 0.68], N = 361, again, excluding outliers. Psychological therapy for anger was associated with a moderate effect size, g = 0.60, 95% CI [0.26, 0.93], N = 324, while treatment for depression and anxiety was associated with a small and non-significant effect size, g = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.85], N = 216, after outliers were removed. CONCLUSIONS: Studies are fraught with methodological weaknesses limiting the ability to make firm conclusions about the effectiveness of psychological therapy for people with intellectual disabilities. Improved reporting standards, appropriately powered and well-designed trials, and greater consideration of the nature and degree of adaptations to therapy are needed to minimise bias and increase the certainty of conclusions.

Specific phobias in children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities: SPIRIT, an adaptation and feasibility study.

Background: There is a lack of interventions for specific phobia in children and adolescents with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Objectives: The objectives were to: (a) develop an intervention for specific phobia, together with an intervention fidelity checklist and logic model, and evaluate candidate outcome measures, together with parents/carers and clinicians; (b) describe treatment as usual; (c) model the intervention to determine the acceptability and feasibility for all stakeholders, judge the appropriateness of outcome measures, explore recruitment pathways, and examine the feasibility and acceptability of consent and associated processes; and (d) describe factors that facilitate or challenge the intervention. Design: Phase 1a: using consensus methods, an Intervention Development Group was established who met to develop the intervention, review candidate outcome measures and contribute to the development of the intervention fidelity checklists and logic model. Phase 1b: a national online survey was conducted with parents and professionals to describe treatment as usual. Phase 2: a single-group non-randomised feasibility study was designed to model the intervention and to test intervention feasibility and acceptability, outcome measures and aspects of the research process. Setting: Phase 2: participants were recruited from National Health Service community child learning disabilities teams and special schools in England. Treatment was delivered in the child learning disabilities teams. Participants: Children aged 5-15 years with moderate to severe learning disability and specific phobia, and their parents/carers. Interventions: The SPIRIT intervention comprised two half-day workshops and eight support sessions plus treatment as usual. Main outcomes: The feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and research processes, recruitment, outcome measure completion rates and acceptability, and intervention adherence. Parents completed all of the outcome measures, with very low rates of missing data. The recruitment of sites and participants was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: The intervention was successfully developed and modelled with 15 participants with moderate to severe learning disabilities and their parents. The intervention was judged to be feasible and acceptable by parents/carers and therapists. Parents/carers and therapists suggested minor intervention revisions. Limitations: Randomisation was not modelled within this feasibility study, although the majority of parents and therapists indicated that this would be acceptable. Conclusions: The SPIRIT intervention and associated study processes were judged to be feasible and acceptable. The intervention requires minor revisions. Future work: The SPIRIT intervention should be tested further within a clinical trial. Study registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34766613. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130177) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 64. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

This study was about children and adolescents who have moderate to severe learning disabilities and specific phobia. This study had two parts. In the first part, we worked with parents of young people with learning disabilities and therapists to develop a treatment for specific phobia in children and adolescents with moderate to severe learning disabilities. We also collected information about what treatment young people were currently getting. To do this, we conducted a national (United Kingdom) survey of parents/carers who have a child with a learning disability and a phobia, along with a survey of health professionals who work with children with learning disabilities. Together with parents and therapists, we developed a treatment for specific phobia in children and adolescents with moderate to severe learning disabilities. We collected information about what treatments young people received for specific phobia and found that many do not receive any treatment for their specific phobia. In the second part, we wanted to find out whether the treatment was acceptable to parents and therapists. To do this, we tried out the treatment with 15 children and adolescents. We had difficulties getting people involved in the study due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We got enough people involved to help us to work out whether the treatment was acceptable to parents and therapists. We interviewed parents and therapists to find out how they felt about the treatment and being part of the study. We also talked to therapists to ask them what they thought about the treatment. Parents told us that they liked being involved in the study and found the treatment helped them to help their children. Parents and therapists suggested some changes to the treatment to help improve it in the future. It was recommended that a larger study should be completed.

Behavioural interventions to treat anxiety in adults with autism and moderate to severe intellectual disabilities: the BEAMS-ID feasibility study.

Background: Interventions for anxiety need to be adapted to meet the needs of autistic people with moderate to severe learning disabilities and successfully modelled before evidence about efficacy can be generated from clinical trials. Objectives: The objectives were to: (1) adapt a behavioural intervention for anxiety, develop an intervention fidelity checklist and logic model, and appraise candidate outcome measures, together with carers, autistic people, and clinicians, (2) characterise treatment-as-usual, (3) model the adapted intervention to determine the acceptability and feasibility for all stakeholders, judge the appropriateness of outcome measures, examine the feasibility and acceptability of consent and associated processes and (4) describe factors that facilitate or challenge intervention delivery. Design: This study had two phases. Phase 1a: using consensus methods, an intervention adaptation group was formed who met to adapt the intervention, appraise candidate outcome measures, and contribute to the development of the intervention fidelity checklists and logic model. Phase 1b: a national online survey was conducted with professionals to characterise treatment-as-usual. Phase 2: this was a single-group non-randomised feasibility study designed to model the intervention to test intervention feasibility and acceptability, outcome measures, and aspects of the research process. Setting: Participants were recruited from National Health Service community adult learning disabilities teams in England. Participants: Participants aged 16 and over with a diagnosis of autism, moderate to severe learning disabilities, an anxiety disorder, and a carer who was available to take part in the intervention. For those who lacked capacity to make a decision about taking part, a consultee had to provide advice that the participant should be included in the study. Interventions: The intervention comprised 12 sessions alongside treatment-as-usual. Main outcome measures: The feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and research processes, outcome measure completion rates, and intervention adherence. Results: The intervention was successfully adapted and modelled with 28 autistic participants with moderate to severe learning disabilities. The intervention was judged to be feasible and acceptable by autistic adults with learning disabilities, carers, and therapists. Carers and therapists suggested minor intervention revisions. Carers completed 100% of outcome measures and the missing data rate was low; however, they indicated that some of the questions were repetitive and said they had difficulty responding to some items. The use of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005, led to an average 5-week delay to participant enrolment. The accrual rate was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and improved during the summer and early autumn of 2022. Limitations: Randomisation was not modelled within this feasibility study, although carers and therapists indicated that this would be acceptable. Conclusions: The BEAMS-ID intervention and associated study processes were judged to be feasible and acceptable. The intervention required minor revision. Future work: The BEAMS-ID intervention should be tested further within a trial. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN12637590. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129804) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 72. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

This study was about autistic adults with moderate to severe learning disabilities who have anxiety. There are good interventions for anxiety, but these need to change to meet the needs of autistic adults with moderate to severe learning disabilities. An example of such an intervention is called exposure therapy. This study had two parts. In the first part, we worked with autistic adults, carers and family members, and professionals to adapt an existing anxiety intervention. We also completed a national survey to find out what interventions people are getting now. In the second part, the intervention was tested with 28 autistic adults with moderate to severe learning disabilities. We asked participants, carers and clinicians about their experiences of being part of the study and receiving the intervention. We successfully changed an existing intervention together with autistic adults, carers and family members, and professionals. The intervention included relaxation training and exposure therapy. From our national survey, we found out that autistic people with moderate to severe learning disabilities who have problems with anxiety are most often offered psychological interventions (e.g. relaxation) or medication (e.g. sertraline) for anxiety. Exposure therapy was not offered very frequently. We tried out our intervention and autistic people with moderate to severe learning disabilities told us that they liked coming to the intervention and liked that their carer attended. Carers liked taking part in the research and were positive about the intervention. Therapists told us that the intervention was suitable and were positive about the training they received in delivering the intervention. Both carers and therapists suggested some changes to the intervention to help improve it in the future. We recommended that a larger study should now be completed.