Search

Background: Adults with intellectual disabilities often display behaviour that challenges that is a result of biological differences, psychological challenges, and lack of appropriate social support. Intensive Support Teams (IST) are recommended to support the care needs of this group and avoid hospitalisation. However, little attention has been paid to the perspectives of stakeholders who manage, work in, or use ISTs., Method: Interviews and focus groups were conducted with 50 stakeholders (IST service managers and professionals, adults with intellectual disabilities, and family and paid carers) of ISTs. Services operated according to one of two service models previously identified in ISTs in England (enhanced or independent)., Results: Thematic analysis identified accessible and flexible support, individualised care, and the involvement of carers and other relevant agencies in management plans and reviews as features of good IST care highlighted by all stakeholder groups. IST managers and professionals described the key challenges of current IST provision as unclear referral criteria, limited interfaces with other local services, and perceived threats associated with funding and staff retention. Findings were similar between the two IST models., Conclusions: ISTs are able to offer care and specialist support that is valued by families, service users and other care providers. However, they face several operational challenges that should be addressed if ISTs are to reach their potential along with community intellectual disability services in supporting adults with intellectual disabilities who display behaviour that challenges in the community., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Intensive support teams (ISTs) are recommended for individuals with intellectual disabilities who display behaviours that challenge. However, there is currently little evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of IST models operating in England., Aims: To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of IST models., Method: We carried out a cohort study to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two previously identified IST models (independent and enhanced) in England. Adult participants ( n = 226) from 21 ISTs (ten independent and 11 enhanced) were enrolled. The primary outcome was change in challenging behaviour between baseline and 9 months as measured by the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Community version 2., Results: We found no statistically significant differences between models for the primary outcome (adjusted β = 4.27; 95% CI -6.34 to 14.87; P = 0.430) or any secondary outcomes. Quality-adjusted life-years (0.0158; 95% CI: -0.0088 to 0.0508) and costs (£3409.95; 95% CI -£9957.92 to £4039.89) of the two models were comparable., Conclusions: The study provides evidence that both models were associated with clinical improvement for similar costs at follow-up. We recommend that the choice of service model should rest with local services. Further research should investigate the critical components of IST care to inform the development of fidelity criteria, and policy makers should consider whether roll out of such teams should be mandated.

Although the research base on mental health in intellectual disabilities is advancing, there are long-standing barriers that hinder successful completion of funded studies. A variety of stakeholders hold the key to mitigating the challenges and arriving at sustainable solutions that involve researchers, experts by experience, clinicians and many others in the research pathway. Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic can also contribute to improvements in the conduct of research in the medium to long term. People with an intellectual disability and mental health conditions deserve high standards of evidence-based care.

Introduction: Approximately 17% of adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) living in the community display behaviours that challenge. Intensive support teams (ISTs) have been recommended to provide high-quality responsive care aimed at avoiding unnecessary admissions and reducing lengthy inpatient stays in England. We have identified two models of ISTs (model 1: enhanced provision and model 2: independent provision). This study aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the two models of ISTs., Methods and Analysis: A cohort of 226 adults with ID displaying behaviour that challenges who receive support from ISTs from each model will be recruited and assessed at baseline and 9 months later to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness between models. The primary outcome is reduction in challenging behaviour measured by the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Community (ABC-C). The mean difference in change in ABC score between the two IST models will be estimated from a multilevel linear regression model. Secondary outcomes include mental health status, clinical risk, quality of life, health-related quality of life, level of functioning and service use. We will undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis taking both a health and social care and wider societal perspective. Semistructured interviews will be conducted with multiple stakeholders (ie, service users, paid/family carers, IST managers/staff) to investigate the experience of IST care as well as an online survey of referrers to capture their contact with the teams., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 18/LO/0890). Informed consent will be obtained from the person with ID, or a family/nominated consultee for those lacking capacity and from his/her caregivers. The findings of the study will be disseminated to academic audiences, professionals, experts by experience and arm's-length bodies and policymakers via publications, seminars and digital platforms., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03586375)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)