Search

Background: Very young children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds often show poorer language development. Whilst there have been attempts to provide early intervention programmes, these sometimes miss the most disadvantaged groups. Aims: This report presents preliminary feasibility and effectiveness data for a novel language intervention designed for parents of toddlers in the United Kingdom. Methods and Procedures: In total, 43 UK families of 2–4‐year‐olds were recruited to the study, half of whom completed an 8‐week course (Tots Talking) focussed on parent interaction, and half of whom acted as wait‐list controls. Results and Outcomes: Results suggest that such programmes are feasible for families with 86% staying in the intervention. In addition, greater changes in underlying communication skills such as joint attention and gesture were evident compared to wait‐list controls. Conclusions and Implications: We conclude that pre‐verbal skills may be more important to measure as initial outcomes than language or vocabulary change in this population. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject: Children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are at higher risk of communication difficulties and there is a need for community intervention programmes for very young children. What this study adds: This study suggests that such programmes can be feasible and effective, but that very early/basic communicative skills (such as joint attention) may be boosted first rather than language or vocabulary. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Children's centres and other community services could feasibly run short parent facing courses emphasising contingent communication in low SES families and other diverse groups. These may be more successful run with younger preschoolers. Joint attention may be a better focus of intervention before expecting vocabulary or language change. Community health professionals may find this information useful in referring and supporting families in need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comparative optimism, the belief that negative events are more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself, is well established in health risk research. It is unknown, however, whether comparative optimism also permeates people's health expectations and potentially behaviour during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Objectives: Data were collected through an international survey (N = 6485) exploring people's thoughts and psychosocial behaviours relating to COVID‐19. This paper reports UK data on comparative optimism. In particular, we examine the belief that negative events surrounding risk and recovery from COVID‐19 are perceived as more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself. Methods: Using online snowball sampling through social media, anonymous UK survey data were collected from N = 645 adults during weeks 5‐8 of the UK COVID‐19 lockdown. The sample was normally distributed in terms of age and reflected the UK ethnic and disability profile. Findings: Respondents demonstrated comparative optimism where they believed that as compared to others of the same age and gender, they were unlikely to experience a range of controllable (eg accidentally infect/ be infected) and uncontrollable (eg need hospitalization/ intensive care treatment if infected) COVID‐19‐related risks in the short term (P <.001). They were comparatively pessimistic (ie thinking they were more at risk than others for developing COVID‐19‐related infection or symptoms) when thinking about the next year. Discussion: This is one of the first ever studies to report compelling comparative biases in UK adults' thinking about COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current policy in UK health services emphasizes that, where possible, people with intellectual disabilities should access the same services as people without intellectual disabilities. One of the barriers to this is the confidence of clinicians and therapists. In this paper, we report on the development of a scale to describe the confidence of therapists in working with people with intellectual disabilities (the Therapy Confidence Scale-Intellectual Disabilities [TCS-ID]). One-hundred and eighty-one therapists who provided talking therapies but who did not work primarily with people with intellectual disabilities completed the scale; 43 people completed the scale twice for test-retest reliability purposes. One-hundred and seven people also completed a scale of general therapy self-efficacy. The TCS-ID has a single factor structure accounting for 62% of the variance, Cronbach's alpha for the scale is 0.93 and test-retest reliability is 0.83. There are significant differences in confidence based upon participants experience in working with people with intellectual disabilities and their therapeutic orientation, and there is a significant association between the TCS-ID and the General Therapy Self-efficacy Scale. Sixty clinicians working in mainstream mental health services received training on adapting their therapeutic approaches to meet the needs of people with intellectual disabilities. The TCS-ID was used pre-training and post-training and demonstrated a significant increase in confidence for all group. We suggest that the scale has good psychometric properties and can be used to develop an understanding of the impact of training for mainstream therapist in working with people with intellectual disabilities. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message There is increasing emphasis on people with intellectual disabilities receiving services from mainstream mental health services., There is no research describing the experiences and outcomes of people with intellectual disabilities receiving mainstream talking therapy services., The confidence that clinicians have in working with people with intellectual disabilities may be a barrier to them receiving mainstream services., The Therapy Confidence Scale-Intellectual Disabilities is a psychometrically sound scale for measuring the confidence of therapists in working with people with intellectual disabilities and is a useful outcome measure for training clinicians to work with people with intellectual disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]