Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35305746›Full record

Trial reportThe lancet. Psychiatry2022

Combined social communication therapy at home and in education for young autistic children in England (PACT-G): a parallel, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Jonathan Green, Kathy Leadbitter, Ceri Ellis, Lauren Taylor, Heather L Moore, Sophie Carruthers, Kirsty James, Carol Taylor, Matea Balabanovska, Sophie Langhorne and 11 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The lancet. Psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Jonathan GreenDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Manchester Royal Children's Hospital, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: jonathan.green@manchester.ac.uk.
Kathy LeadbitterDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Ceri EllisDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Lauren TaylorDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.
Heather L MoorePopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Sir James Spence Institute, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Sophie CarruthersDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.
Kirsty JamesDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.
Carol TaylorDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Matea BalabanovskaDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sophie LanghorneDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Catherine AldredDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Vicky SlonimsDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK; Evelina London Children's Hospital, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Victoria GrahameComplex Neurodevelopmental Disorders Service (CNDS), Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Jeremy ParrPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Complex Neurodevelopmental Disorders Service (CNDS), Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Great North Children's Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Neil HumphreyInstitute of Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Patricia HowlinDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.
Helen McConachiePopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Sir James Spence Institute, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Ann Le CouteurPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Sir James Spence Institute, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Tony CharmanDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.
Richard EmsleyDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.
Andrew PicklesDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBNewcastle University · GBCumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust · GBRoyal Manchester Children's Hospital · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K005863/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutistic children can have difficulty generalising treatment effects beyond the immediate treatment context. Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy (PACT) has been successful when delivered in the clinic. Here we tested the Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy-Generalised (PACT-G) intervention combined between home and education settings for its overall effect and mechanistic transmission of effect across contexts.

methodsIn this parallel, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial, we recruited autistic children aged 2-11 years in urban or semi-urban areas in Manchester, Newcastle, and London, England. Children needed to meet core autism criteria on Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-second edition (ADOS-2) and parent-rated Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ-lifetime), and children older than 5 years were included if they had intentional communication but expressive language equivalent of age 4 years or younger. Eligible children were randomly assigned (1:1), using block randomisation (random block sizes of 2 and 4) and stratified for site, age (2-4 years vs 5-11 years), and gender, to either PACT-G plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Research assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The PACT-G intervention was delivered by a therapist in parallel to the child's parents at home and to learning-support assistants (LSA) at their place of education, using both in-person and remote sessions over a 6 month period, to optimise adult-child social interaction. Treatment as usual included any health support or intervention from education or local community services. The primary outcome was autism symptom severity using the ADOS-2, as measured by researchers, at 12 months versus baseline. Secondary outcomes were Brief Observation of Social Communication Change (BOSCC) and dyadic social interaction between child and adult across contexts, both at 12 months. Other secondary outcome measures were assessed using the following composites: language, anxiety, repetitive behaviour, adaptive behaviour, parental wellbeing, child health-related quality of life, and disruptive behaviour. Assessments were done at baseline, 7 months, and 12 months. We used an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of covariance for the efficacy outcome measures. Adverse events were assessed by researchers for all trial families at each contact and by therapists in the PACT-G group at each visit. This study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN 25378536.

findingsBetween Jan 18, 2017, and April 19, 2018, 555 children were referred and 249 were eligible, agreed to participate, and were randomly assigned to either PACT-G (n=122) or treatment as usual (n=127). One child in the PACT-G group withdrew and requested their data be removed from the study, giving an ITT population of 248 children. 51 (21%) of 248 children were female, 197 (79%) were male, 149 (60%) were White, and the mean age was 4·0 years (SD 0·6). The groups were well balanced for demographic and clinical characteristics. In the PACT-G group, parents of children received a median of 10 (IQR 8-12) home sessions and LSAs received a median of 8 (IQR 5-10) education sessions over 6 months. We found no treatment effect on the ADOS-2 primary outcome compared with treatment as usual (effect size 0·04 [95% CI -0·19 to 0·26]; p=0·74), or researcher-assessed BOSCC (0·03 [-0·25 to 0·31]), language composite (-0·03 [-0·15 to 0·10]), repetitive behaviour composite (0·00 [-0·35 to 0·35]), adaptive behaviour composite (0·01 [-0·15 to 0·18]), or child wellbeing (0·09 [-0·15 to 0·34]). PACT-G treatment improved synchronous response in both parent (0·50 [0·36 to 0·65]) and LSA (0·33 [0·16 to 0·50]), mediating increased child communication with parent (0·26 [0·12 to 0·40]) and LSA (0·20 [0·06 to 0·34]). Child dyadic communication change mediated outcome symptom alteration on BOSCC at home (indirect effect -0·78 [SE 0·34; 95% CI -1·44 to -0·11]; p=0·022) although not in education (indirect effect -0·67 [SE 0·37; 95% CI -1·40 to 0·06]; p=0·073); such an effect was not seen on ADOS-2. Treatment with PACT-G also improved the parental wellbeing composite (0·44 [0·08 to 0·79]) and the child disruptive behaviour composite in home and education (0·29 [0·01 to 0·57]). Adverse events on child behaviour and wellbeing were recorded in 13 (10%) of 127 children in the treatment as usual group (of whom four [31%] were girls) and 11 (9%) of 122 in the PACT-G group (of whom three [33%] were girls). One serious adverse event on parental mental health was recorded in the PACT-G group and was possibly study related.

interpretationAlthough we found no effect on the primary outcome compared with treatment as usual, adaptation of the 12-month PACT intervention into briefer multicomponent delivery across home and education preserved the positive proximal outcomes, although smaller in effect size, and the original pattern of treatment mediation seen in clinic-delivered therapy, as well as improving parental wellbeing and child disruptive behaviours across home and school. Reasons for this reduced efficacy might be the reduced dose of each component, the effect of remote delivery, and the challenges of the delivery contexts. Caution is needed in assuming that changing delivery methods and context will preserve an original intervention efficacy for autistic children.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Award.

Indexed as

Autistic DisorderAdultChildChild, PreschoolCommunicationEnglandFemaleHumansMaleQuality of LifeSingle-Blind MethodTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35305746
PMCPMC9630149
OpenAlexW4221039828

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.