Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41814416›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2026

A feasibility randomised trial of remotely delivered Video Interaction Guidance for parents of children with intellectual disability referred to specialist mental health services.

Vaso Totsika, Eilis Kennedy, Michael Absoud, Rachel McNamara, Elizabeth Randell, Gemma Grant, Angela Casbard, Sophie Levitt, Angela Hassiotis, Manuel De Oliveira Gomes and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Vaso TotsikaDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Eilis KennedyTavistock & Portman NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Michael AbsoudEvelina London Children's Hospital, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rachel McNamaraCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Elizabeth RandellCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. randelle@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1606-3175
Gemma GrantChallenging Behaviour Foundation, Chatham, UK.
Angela CasbardCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Sophie LevittBrighter Futures for Children, Reading, UK.
Angela HassiotisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Manuel De Oliveira GomesDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Cristina Di SantoChallenging Behaviour Foundation, Chatham, UK.
Kian FortesDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Charmaine KohnDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Research for Patient Benefit Programme NIHR203051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChildren with intellectual disability are at a higher risk of presenting with behaviours that challenge. Video Interaction Guidance (VIG) is a brief, personalised, strengths-based therapy that focuses on improving the parent-child relationship and interactions. A strong parent-child relationship may reduce the risk of behaviours that challenge. Access to support is difficult for families of children with intellectual disability. Remotely delivered support may enhance access to therapy for those who might otherwise struggle to access support. To date, no definitive effectiveness trial of VIG, or remotely delivered VIG, has been conducted, including in intellectual disability.

methodsA feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to recruit 50 parents of a child with intellectual disability (aged 6-12) referred to specialist mental health services. Participants were randomised on a 1:1 basis to VIG plus treatment as usual (TAU) or just TAU. Measures were collected remotely at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up. A parallel economic study explored the feasibility of a future economic evaluation, while an embedded process evaluation explored feasibility and acceptability through qualitative interviews. A survey investigated TAU in specialist mental health services. A Parent Carer Advisory Group of 10 parents of children with intellectual disability worked with the research team on design, recruitment, data analysis and interpretation.

resultsForty-four parents consented to participate in the study and 40 were randomised to the RCT. Of those, 75% remained in the study at 6-month follow-up, and 70% of the VIG-arm participants completed at least 3 cycles of VIG. At 6-month follow-up, between 83.3% and 100% of parent-completed questionnaires were completed, including the Developmental Behaviour Checklist (DBC2 at 86.7% completion rate). The acceptability of VIG was high among parents and practitioners. Parents identified few barriers to participation when VIG was delivered remotely. The cost of VIG was calculated at £153.35 per session and £306.70 per cycle. Video-feedback interventions are not typically part of TAU: just 15% of 66 specialist mental health services reported offering any video-feedback intervention to parents of children with intellectual disability.

conclusionsFindings supported the feasibility and acceptability of a definitive trial of remotely delivered VIG to parents of children with intellectual disability referred for support to specialist mental health services. Adaptations will be needed to enhance recruitment and align some of the study outcomes and processes more closely to parent preferences. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ISCTRN 13171328, Registration date 28 December 2022.

Indexed as

Intellectual disabilityMental healthParentVideo Interaction Guidance

Identifiers

PMID41814416
PMCPMC13088628

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.