Search

Background: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is relevant in the estimation of improvement in a patient outcome.Aim: To determine the MCID on the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Irritability (ABC-I), widely used to measure the effects of intervention for aggressive challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities.Method and Procedures: We utilised distribution and anchor based methods to estimate the ABC-I MCID. We extracted data from 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for meta-analysis. We conducted three online workshops with family carers and professionals to consider meaningful change in case vignettes of increasing severity of aggressive challenging behaviour.Outcomes and Results: We did not find overlap in the range of values between the two approaches. The meta-analysis indicated a range of MCID on the ABC-I (0.05, 4.94) whilst the anchor-based estimation indicated a larger change (6.6, 16.6).Conclusions and Implications: The MCID is essential in interpreting the results from intervention studies. The present work was undertaken as part of a wider programme on the development and testing of a psychosocial intervention for aggressive challenging behaviour, and it is of interest to researchers in justifying how they choose and determine the MCID on the outcome of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our STORM intervention was developed for people (16 +) with intellectual disabilities to enhance their capacity to manage and resist stigma. The current study describes the adaptation of STORM for (synchronous) on-line delivery in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. To adapt the manualised face-to-face STORM group intervention for delivery via web-based meeting platforms and to conduct an initial pilot study to consider its acceptability and feasibility. The 5-session STORM intervention was carefully adapted for online delivery. In a pilot study with four community groups (N = 22), outcome, health economics and attendance data were collected, and fidelity of delivery assessed. Focus groups with participants, and interviews with facilitators provided data on acceptability and feasibility. The intervention was adapted with minimal changes to the content required. In the pilot study, 95% of participants were retained at follow-up, 91% attended at least three of the five sessions. Outcome measure completion and fidelity were excellent, and facilitators reported implementation to be feasible. The intervention was reported to be acceptable by participants. When provided with the necessary resources and support, people with intellectual disabilities participate actively in web-delivered group interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]