Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39487624›Full record

ArticleHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024

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

Peter E Langdon, Magdalena M Apanasionok, Emma Scripps, Karen Bunning, Malwina Filipczuk, David Gillespie, Richard P Hastings, Andrew Jahoda, Rachel McNamara, Dheeraj Rai and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  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

11 authors.

Peter E LangdonCentre for Research in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (CIDD), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7745-1825
Magdalena M ApanasionokCentre for Research in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (CIDD), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3861-3801
Emma ScrippsCentre for Research in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (CIDD), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6140-2976
Karen BunningSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7396-9205
Malwina FilipczukCentre for Research in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (CIDD), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0009-0001-5051-9842
David GillespieCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6934-2928
Richard P HastingsCentre for Research in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (CIDD), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0495-8270
Andrew JahodaPsychological Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3985-6098
Rachel McNamaraCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7280-1611
Dheeraj RaiCentre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK and National Institute for Health and Care Research - Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7239-3523
Kylie M GrayCentre for Research in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (CIDD), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6518-4240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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

Indexed as

Autistic DisorderFeasibility StudiesIntellectual DisabilityAdolescentAdultAnxietyBehavior TherapyCaregiversFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedState MedicineYoung AdultANXIETY DISORDERSAUTISMEXPOSURE THERAPYFEASIBILITY STUDYINTELLECTUAL DISABILITYLEARNING DISABILITYPSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT

Identifiers

PMID39487624
PMCPMC11586821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.