Social validity of randomised controlled trials in health services research and intellectual disabilities: a qualitative exploration of stakeholder views

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard of evidence-based practice in medicine but they have had limited influence in the field of intellectual disabilities. Previous literature suggests that participants and professionals have limited tolerance for this type of research methodology. However, it is not known how well service users, carers and other health professionals understand and accept the need for RCTs, and why it is important for individuals with intellectual disabilities to be included in this kind of research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We examined individual perceptions of RCTs in 51 participants (18 carers, 6 service users and 27 professionals) using semi-structured interviews. A framework approach was adopted in the analysis of data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that participants had concerns about capacity and resource allocation but held positive views towards this type of research methodology. Understanding of the principles behind RCTs was poor amongst service users and a minority of carers, but mediated by previous exposure to research for professionals.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The social validity of RCTs in intellectual disabilities may be compromised by lack of understanding of the design and the on-going concerns about obtaining informed consent especially in incapacitated adults. However, the overall finding that the need for this form of research was seen in a positive light suggests that there is a turning point in the perceptions of stakeholders working in intellectual disabilities services. We recommend that researchers include on-going education on RCT design during trials, tailoring it to all stakeholders with emphasis on strong service user and care involvement. This could be a pivotal element in improving acceptability of, and recruitment to RCTs.</p

Applied behaviour analysis and standard treatment in intellectual disability:2-year outcomes

SummaryApplied behaviour analysis by a specialist team plus standard treatment for adults with intellectual disability displaying challenging behaviour was reported to be clinically and cost-effective after 6 months. In a 2-year follow-up of the same trial cohort, participants receiving the specialist intervention had significantly lower total and subdomain Aberrant Behavior Checklist scores than those receiving usual care alone. After adjustment for baseline covariates there was no significant difference in costs between the trial arms.</jats:p

Randomized, Single-Blind, Controlled Trial of a Specialist Behavior Therapy Team for Challenging Behavior in Adults With Intellectual Disabilities

Objective: Community-based specialist behavior therapy teams may be helpful in managing challenging behavior, but evidence of their effectiveness is limited. This study was designed to examine the effectiveness and costs associated with treatment by a specialist behavior therapy team.Method: This was a parallel-group, randomized, single-blind controlled trial carried out in an intellectual disabilities service in England. Participants were 63 male and female service users with mild to severe intellectual disability who presented with challenging behavior. The interventions were standard treatment plus applied behavioral analysis (N=32) and standard treatment only (N=31). The primary outcome measure was challenging behavior, as measured by total and subscale scores on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist 3 and 6 months after randomization. Secondary outcome measures were psychiatric comorbidity assessed at 3 and 6 months using the Psychiatric Assessment Schedule for Adults With a Developmental Disability Checklist (PAS-ADD) and total costs recorded at 6 months. Multilevel modeling was used to compare square root transformations of Aberrant Behavior Checklist scores.Results: Significant differences were found in the transformed total scores on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (difference=-0.89, 95% CI = -1.74 to -0.04) and transformed lethargy and hyperactivity subscale scores (common intervention effect = -0.56, 95% CI = -0.97 to -0.15). Standard care participants fared worse on the PAS-ADD comorbid organic disorder subscale. There was a clear trend for lower overall costs of the intervention.Conclusions: Use of a specialist behavior therapy team in addition to standard treatment appears to be more effective in improving challenging behavior and may have financial advantages over standard treatment