Search

Background: Anger and aggression among adults with intellectual disability (ID) are associated with a range of adverse consequences for their well-being and that of their family or staff carers. The aims were to evaluate the effectiveness of an anger management intervention for adults with mild to moderate ID and to evaluate the costs of the intervention and its impact on health and social care resource use. This paper is concerned with the latter aim., Methods: A cluster-randomised controlled trial was conducted involving day services for adults with ID in Scotland, England and Wales. Incremental costs of delivering the intervention and its impact on subsequent total health and social care package costs were calculated. Full data comparing costs between baseline and follow-up 10 months later were collected for 67 participants in the intervention arm and 62 participants in the control arm. Cost differences between the groups at follow-up, adjusted for baseline levels, were calculated using non-parametric bootstrapping controlling for clustering., Results: The mean hourly excess cost of intervention over treatment as usual was £12.34. A mean adjusted cost difference of £22.46 per person per week in favour of the intervention group was found but this was not statistically significant., Conclusions: The baseline-adjusted cost difference at follow-up would result in a fairly immediate compensation for the excess costs of intervention, provided the difference is not a statistical artefact. Further research is needed to clarify the extent to which it might represent a real saving in service support costs., (© 2014 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The context for the present study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a group-based anger-management intervention, delivered by day-service staff. We aimed to develop a scale to measure the fidelity of manualized cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered to adults with intellectual disabilities in group-based settings. A 30-item monitoring instrument (the MAnualized Group Intervention Check: MAGIC) was adapted from an existing fidelity-monitor instrument for individual CBT. Two sessions for 27 groups were observed by pairs of monitors who had no other contact with the intervention. 16 observers participated, in 15 unique pairings. Observers recorded high levels of inter-rater reliability and the scale had good internal consistency. Fidelity ratings predicted two key outcomes of the intervention, and were themselves predicted by the therapists' clinical supervisors., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many people with intellectual disabilities display high levels of anger, and cognitive-behavioural anger management interventions are used routinely. However, for these methods to be used optimally, a better understanding is needed of different forms of anger assessment. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of a range of measures to self- and carer reports of anger expression, including instruments used to assess mental health and challenging behaviour., Method: Adults with intellectual disabilities, who had been identified as having problems with anger control, their key-workers and home carers all rated the service users' trait anger, using parallel versions of the same instrument (the Provocation Inventory). In addition, service users completed a battery of mental health assessments (the Glasgow Depression Scale, Glasgow Anxiety Scale and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), and both groups of carers completed a battery of challenging behaviour measures (the Hyperactivity and Irritability domains of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist and the Modified Overt Anger Scale)., Results: Participants had high levels of mental health problems (depression: 34%; anxiety: 73%) and severe challenging behaviour (26%). Hierarchical linear regression analysis was used to explore the extent to which anger ratings by the three groups of respondents were predicted by demographic factors, mental health measures and challenging behaviour measures. Older service users rated themselves as less angry and were also rated as less angry by home carers, but not by key-workers. More intellectually able service users were rated as more angry by both sets of carers, but not by the service users themselves. Significantly, mental health status (but not challenging behaviour) predicted service users' self-ratings of anger, whereas challenging behaviour (but not mental health status) predicted carers' ratings of service users' anger., Conclusions: Service users and their carers appear to use different information when rating the service users' anger. Service users' self-ratings reflect their internal emotional state and mental health, as reflected by their ratings of anxiety and depression, whereas staff rate service users' anger on the basis of overt behaviours, as measured by challenging behaviour scales., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Many people with intellectual disabilities find it hard to control their anger and this often leads to aggression which can have serious consequences, such as exclusion from mainstream services and the need for potentially more expensive emergency placements., Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) intervention for anger management in people with intellectual disabilities., Method: A cluster-randomised trial of group-based 12-week CBT, which took place in day services for people with intellectual disabilities and was delivered by care staff using a treatment manual. Participants were 179 service users identified as having problems with anger control randomly assigned to either anger management or treatment as usual. Assessments were conducted before the intervention, and at 16 weeks and 10 months after randomisation (trial registration: ISRCTN37509773)., Results: The intervention had only a small, and non-significant, effect on participants' reports of anger on the Provocation Index, the primary outcome measure (mean difference 2.8, 95% CI -1.7 to 7.4 at 10 months). However, keyworker Provocation Index ratings were significantly lower in both follow-up assessments, as were service-user ratings on another self-report anger measure based on personally salient triggers. Both service users and their keyworkers reported greater usage of anger coping skills at both follow-up assessments and keyworkers and home carers reported lower levels of challenging behaviour., Conclusions: The intervention was effective in improving anger control by people with intellectual disabilities. It provides evidence of the effectiveness of a CBT intervention for this client group and demonstrates that the staff who work with them can be trained and supervised to deliver such an intervention with reasonable fidelity.

Background: Anger is a frequent problem for many people with intellectual disabilities, and is often expressed as verbal and/or physical aggression. Cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) is the treatment of choice for common mental health problems, but CBT has only recently been adapted for people with intellectual disabilities. Anger is the main psychological presentation in which controlled trials have been used to evaluate CBT interventions for people with intellectual disabilities but these do not include rigorous randomised studies., Objectives: To evaluate (1) the impact of a staff-delivered manualised CBT anger management intervention on (a) reported anger among people with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, and (b) anger coping skills, aggression, mental health, quality of life and costs of health and social care; (2) factors that influence outcome; and (3) the experience of service users, lay therapists and service managers., Design: A cluster randomised controlled trial based on 30 day centres (15 intervention and 15 control). Intention-to-treat comparisons of outcomes used a two-level linear regression model to allow for clustering within centres with baseline outcome levels as a covariate. Comparison of cost data used non-parametric bootstrapping. Qualitative analysis used interpretative phenomenological analysis and thematic analysis., Setting: Recruited day centres had four-plus service users with problem anger who were prepared to participate, two-plus staff willing to be lay therapists, a supportive manager and facilities for group work, and no current anger interventions., Participants: A total of 212 service users with problem anger were recruited. Thirty-three were deemed ineligible (30 could not complete assessments and three withdrew before randomisation). Retention at follow-up was 81%, with 17 withdrawals in each arm. Two to four staff per centre were recruited as lay therapists. Eleven service users, nine lay therapists and eight managers were interviewed., Interventions: The manualised intervention comprised 12 weekly 2-hour group sessions supplemented by 'homework'. Lay therapists received training and ongoing supervision from a clinical psychologist. Treatment fidelity, group attendance and resources used in intervention delivery were monitored., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the service user-rated Provocation Index (PI), a measure of response to hypothetical situations that may provoke anger. Secondary trial outcomes were the key worker-rated PI; the service user- and key worker-rated Profile of Anger Coping Skills (PACS); the service user-rated PACS imaginal provocation test (PACS-IPT), a measure of response to actual situations known to provoke anger; aggression; mental health; self-esteem; quality of life; and health and social care resource use. Assessments were administered before randomisation and at 16 weeks and 10 months after randomisation., Results: Fourteen treatment groups were delivered, each with 12 sessions lasting an average of 114 minutes, with a mean of 4.9 service users and 2.0 lay therapists. The mean hourly cost per service user was £ 25.26. The mean hourly excess cost over treatment as usual was £ 12.34. There was no effect of intervention on the primary outcome - self-rated PI. There was a significant impact on the following secondary outcomes at the 10-month follow-up: key worker-rated PI, self-rated PACS-IPT and self- and key worker-rated PACS. Key workers and home carers reported significantly lower aggression at 16 weeks, but not at 10 months. There was no impact on mental health, self-esteem, quality of life or total cost of health and social care. Service users, key workers and service managers were uniformly positive., Conclusions: The intervention was effective at changing anger coping skills and staff-rated anger. Impact on self-rated anger was equivocal. With hindsight there are reasons, from an analysis of factors influencing outcomes, to think that self-rated PI was not a well-chosen primary outcome. Widespread implementation of manualised lay therapist-led but psychologist-supervised anger management CBT for people with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities is recommended.