Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31437228›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of PBS-based staff training for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability.

Alessandro Bosco, Laura Paulauskaite, Ian Hall, Jason Crabtree, Sujata Soni, Asit Biswas, Vivien Cooper, Michaela Poppe, Michael King, Andre Strydom and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Alessandro BoscoInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2374-3427
Laura PaulauskaiteDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ian HallCommunity Learning Disability Service, Mile End Hospital, East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Jason CrabtreeCommunity Learning Disability Service, Mile End Hospital, East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0542-1504
Sujata SoniCommunity Learning Disability Service, Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Asit BiswasLeicestershire Partnership NHS Trust & University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Vivien CooperChallenging Behaviour Foundation, the Old Courthouse, Chatham, Kent, United Kingdom.
Michaela PoppeDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Michael KingDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Andre StrydomDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Michael J CrawfordDepartment of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Angela HassiotisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health 10/104/13Department of Health RP-DG-0611-10003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPositive Behaviour Support (PBS) for challenging behaviour is a complex intervention. Process evaluation is pivotal in fully understanding the mechanisms and contextual factors that impact on participant outcomes.

aimsTo conduct a process evaluation of a national clinical trial investigating the impact of PBS-based staff training on the level of challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability.

methodThe Medical Research Council guidance for process evaluation of complex interventions was followed. Semi-structured interviews with 62 stakeholders from the intervention arm (service users, family and paid carers, service managers, staff who delivered the intervention and PBS trainers), quantitative data from the study database and an external evaluation of the quality of the PBS plans were used.

resultsTwenty-one health staff volunteered to be trained in delivering PBS. Available log data from 17 therapists revealed that they worked with 63 participants a median of 11.50 hours (IQR 8-32). Only 33 out of 108 reports had included all elements of the intervention. Another 47 reports had some elements of the intervention. All PBS plans were rated weak, indicating insufficient quality to impact challenging behaviour. Stakeholders reported an appreciation of PBS and its potential to impact quality of care and engagement with the participant. However, they also identified important challenges including managing PBS-related caseloads, paid carer turnover and service commitment to the delivery of PBS.

conclusionsPBS-based staff training was well received, but therapists found it difficult to undertake all the elements of the intervention in routine care. Implementing a workforce training strategy is important to better define the active components of PBS, and resource implications if the intervention is no better than usual care.

Indexed as

BehaviorAdultDatabases as TopicHealth PersonnelHumansIntellectual Disability

Identifiers

PMID31437228
PMCPMC6705827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.