Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33785489›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Clinical and cost evaluation of intensive support team (IST) models for adults with intellectual disabilities who display challenging behaviour: a comparative cohort study protocol.

Angela Hassiotis, Athanasia Kouroupa, Rebecca Jones, Nicola Morant, Ken Courtenay, Ian Hall, Vicky Crossey, Renee Romeo, Laurence Taggart, Peter Langdon and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03586375 (Clinical and Cost Evaluation of Intensive Support Teams), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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.

NCT03586375 completednot on this map

Clinical and Cost Evaluation of Intensive Support Teams (IST) for Adults With Intellectual Disabilities and Challenging Behaviour

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2018 to 2021Enrolled226ConditionsIntellectual DisabilityArmsIntensive Support Team Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Angela HassiotisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Athanasia KouroupaDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK athanasia.kouroupa.12@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3659-160X
Rebecca JonesDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Nicola MorantDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4022-8133
Ken CourtenayAssessment and Intervention Team, Barnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Ian HallHackney Integrated Learning Disability Service, East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Vicky CrosseySouth West Community Learning Disability Team & Mental Health Intensive Support and Treatment Team, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Renee RomeoInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Laurence TaggartInstitute of Nursing and Health Research, University of Ulster, Antrim, UK.
Peter LangdonCentre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7745-1825
Victoria RattiDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Vincent KirchnerMedical Director, Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Brynmor Lloyd-EvansDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
University College London · GBBarnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust · GBCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust · GBEast London NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GBNHS Lothian · GBUniversity of Ulster · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionApproximately 17% of adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) living in the community display behaviours that challenge. Intensive support teams (ISTs) have been recommended to provide high-quality responsive care aimed at avoiding unnecessary admissions and reducing lengthy inpatient stays in England. We have identified two models of ISTs (model 1: enhanced provision and model 2: independent provision). This study aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the two models of ISTs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cohort of 226 adults with ID displaying behaviour that challenges who receive support from ISTs from each model will be recruited and assessed at baseline and 9 months later to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness between models. The primary outcome is reduction in challenging behaviour measured by the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Community (ABC-C). The mean difference in change in ABC score between the two IST models will be estimated from a multilevel linear regression model. Secondary outcomes include mental health status, clinical risk, quality of life, health-related quality of life, level of functioning and service use. We will undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis taking both a health and social care and wider societal perspective. Semistructured interviews will be conducted with multiple stakeholders (ie, service users, paid/family carers, IST managers/staff) to investigate the experience of IST care as well as an online survey of referrers to capture their contact with the teams. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 18/LO/0890). Informed consent will be obtained from the person with ID, or a family/nominated consultee for those lacking capacity and from his/her caregivers. The findings of the study will be disseminated to academic audiences, professionals, experts by experience and arm's-length bodies and policymakers via publications, seminars and digital platforms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03586375).

Indexed as

Intellectual DisabilityAdultCohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFemaleHumansLondonMaleQuality of Lifeadult psychiatrydelirium & cognitive disordersorganisation of health servicespsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID33785489
PMCPMC8011791
OpenAlexW3149664278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.