Background:Stigma contributes to the negative social conditions persons with intellectual disabilities are exposed to, and it needs tackling at multiple levels. Standing Up for Myself is a psychosocial group intervention designed to enable individuals with intellectual disabilities to discuss stigmatising encounters in a safe and supportive setting and to increase their self-efficacy in managing and resisting stigma.Objectives:To adapt Standing Up for Myself to make it suitable as a digital intervention; to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of Digital Standing Up for Myself and online administration of outcome measures in a pilot; to describe usual practice in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic to inform future evaluation.Design:Adaptation work followed by a single-arm pilot of intervention delivery.Setting and participants:Four third and education sector organisations. Individuals with mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities, aged 16+, members of existing groups, with access to digital platforms.Intervention:Digital Standing Up for Myself intervention. Adapted from face-to-face Standing Up for Myself intervention, delivered over four weekly sessions, plus a 1-month follow-up session.Outcomes:Acceptability and feasibility of delivering Digital Standing Up for Myself and of collecting outcome and health economic measures at baseline and 3 months post baseline. Outcomes are mental well-being, self-esteem, self-efficacy in rejecting prejudice, reactions to discrimination and sense of social power.Results:Adaptation to the intervention required changes to session duration, group size and number of videos; otherwise, the content remained largely the same. Guidance was aligned with digital delivery methods and a new group member booklet was produced. Twenty-two participants provided baseline data. The intervention was started by 21 participants (four groups), all of whom were retained at 3 months. Group facilitators reported delivering the intervention as feasible and suggested some refinements. Fidelity of the intervention was good, with over 90% of key components observed as implemented by facilitators. Both facilitators and group members reported the intervention to be acceptable. Group members reported subjective benefits, including increased confidence, pride and knowing how to deal with difficult situations. Digital collection of all outcome measures was feasible and acceptable, with data completeness ≥ 95% for all measures at both time points. Finally, a picture of usual practice has been developed as an intervention comparator for a future trial.Limitations:The pilot sample was small. It remains unclear whether participants would be willing to be randomised to a treatment as usual arm or whether they could be retained for 12 months follow-up.Conclusions:The target number of groups and participants were recruited, and retention was good. It is feasible and acceptable for group facilitators with some training and supervision to deliver Digital Standing Up for Myself. Further optimisation of the intervention is warranted.Future work:To maximise the acceptability and reach of the intervention, a future trial could offer the adapted Digital Standing Up for Myself, potentially alongside the original face-to-face version of the intervention.Study registration:This study was registered as ISRCTN16056848.Funding:This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/149/03) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background We evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of manualised sensory integration therapy (SIT) for autistic children with sensory processing difficulties in a two-arm randomised controlled trial. Trial processes and contextual factors which may have affected intervention outcomes were explored within a nested process evaluation. This paper details the process evaluation methods and results. We also discuss implications for evaluation of individual level, tailored interventions in similar populations. Methods The process evaluation was conducted in line with Medical Research Council guidance. Recruitment, demographics, retention, adherence, and adverse effects are reported using descriptive statistics. Fidelity of intervention delivery is reported according to the intervention scoring manual. Qualitative interviews with therapists and carers were undertaken to explore the acceptability of the intervention and trial processes. Qualitative interviews with carers explored potential contamination. Results Recruitment, reach and retention within the trial met expected thresholds. One hundred thirty-eight children and carers were recruited (92% of those screened and 53.5% of those who expressed an interest) with 77.5% retained at 6 months and 69.9% at 12 months post-randomisation. The intervention was delivered with structural and process fidelity with the majority (78.3%) receiving a ‘sufficient dose’ of intervention. However, there was considerable individual variability in the receipt of sessions. Carers and therapists reported that trial processes were generally acceptable though logistical challenges such as appointment times, travel and COVID restrictions were frequent barriers to receiving the intervention. No adverse effects were reported. Conclusions The process evaluation was highly valuable in identifying contextual factors that could impact the effectiveness of this individualised intervention. Rigorous evaluations of interventions for autistic children are important, especially given the limitations such as limited sample sizes and short-term follow-up as faced by previous research. One of the challenges lies in the variability of outcomes considered important by caregivers, as each autistic child faces unique challenges. It is crucial to consider the role of parents or other caregivers in facilitating access to these interventions and how this may impact effectiveness. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN14716440. August 11, 2016.

BACKGROUND: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. AIMS: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. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: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. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: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. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:When provided with the necessary resources and support, people with intellectual disabilities participate actively in web-delivered group interventions.

Background: Carers report unmet need for occupational therapy services addressing sensory difficulties in autism, yet insufficient evidence exists to recommend a therapeutic approach. Objectives: Our aim was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory difficulties across behavioural, functional and quality-of-life outcomes. Design: We carried out a parallel-group randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and a process evaluation. Randomisation utilised random permuted blocks. Setting and participants: Children were recruited via services and self-referral in Wales and England. Inclusion criteria were having an autism diagnosis, being in mainstream primary education and having definite/probable sensory processing difficulties. Exclusion criteria were having current/previous sensory integration therapy and current applied behaviour analysis therapy. Intervention: The intervention was manualised sensory integration therapy delivered over 26 weeks and the comparator was usual care. Outcomes: The primary outcome was problem behaviours (determined using the Aberrant Behavior Checklist), including irritability/agitation, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were adaptive behaviour, functioning and socialisation (using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales); carer stress (measured using the Autism Parenting Stress Index); quality of life (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and Carer Quality of Life); functional change (according to the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure); sensory processing (determined using the Sensory Processing Measure™ at screening and at 6 months to examine mediation effects); and cost-effectiveness (assessed using the Client Service Receipt Inventory). Every effort was made to ensure that outcome assessors were blind to allocation. Results: A total of 138 participants were randomised (n = 69 per group). Usual care was significantly different from the intervention, which was delivered with good fidelity and adherence and minimal contamination, and was associated with no adverse effects. Trial procedures and outcome measures were acceptable. Carers and therapists reported improvement in daily functioning. The primary analysis included 106 participants. There were no significant main effects of the intervention at 6 or 12 months. The adjusted mean difference between groups on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist – irritability at 6 months post randomisation was 0.40 (95% confidence interval –2.33 to 3.14; p = 0.77). Subgroup differences in irritability/agitation at 6 months were observed for sex of child (intervention × female = 6.42, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 12.85; p = 0.050) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (intervention × attention deficit hyperactivity disorder = –6.77, 95% confidence interval –13.55 to –0.01; p = 0.050). There was an effect on carer stress at 6 months by region (intervention × South England = 7.01, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 13.56; p = 0.04) and other neurodevelopmental/genetic conditions (intervention × neurodevelopmental/genetic condition = –9.53, 95% confidence interval –18.08 to –0.98; p = 0.030). Carer-rated goal performance and satisfaction increased across sessions (p < 0.001), with a mean change of 2.75 (95% confidence interval 2.14 to 3.37) for performance and a mean change of 3.34 (95% confidence interval 2.63 to 4.40) for satisfaction. Health economic evaluation suggests that sensory integration therapy is not cost-effective compared with usual care alone. Limitations: Limitations included variability of the intervention setting (i.e. NHS vs. private), delay for some receiving therapy, an error in administration of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and no measurement of comparator arm goal performance. Conclusions: The intervention did not demonstrate clinical benefit above standard care. Subgroup effects are hypothesis-generating only. The intervention is likely to be effective for individualised performance goals, although it is unclear whether effects were in addition to standard care or were maintained. Future work: Further investigation of subgroup effects is needed. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14716440. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Parents of children with intellectual disability are 1.5–2 times more likely than other parents to report mental health difficulties. There is a lack of clinically effective and cost-effective group well-being interventions designed for family carers of young children with intellectual disability. Aim To examine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Early Positive Approaches to Support (E-PAtS) intervention. Design A feasibility study (including randomisation of families into a two-arm trial), questionnaires to assess the feasibility of proposed outcome measures (including resource use and health-related quality of life) and practitioner/family carer interviews. An additional question was included in an online UK survey of families, conducted by the research team to assess usual practice, and a survey of provider organisations. Setting Families recruited from community contexts (i.e. third sector, local authority services, special schools) and self-referral. The E-PAtS intervention was delivered by trained community-based providers. Participants Families with at least one child aged 1.5–5 years with an intellectual disability. At least one parent had to have English-language ability (spoken) for E-PAtS programme participation and participants had to provide informed consent. Interventions E-PAtS intervention – two caregivers from each family invited to eight 2.5-hour group sessions with usual practice. Usual practice – other support provided to the family, including other parenting support. Objectives To assess randomisation willingness/feasibility, recruitment of providers/parents, retention, usual practice, adherence, fidelity and feasibility of proposed outcome measures (including the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale as the proposed primary outcome measure, and parent anxiety/depression, parenting, family functioning/relationships, child behavioural/emotional problems and adaptive skills, child and parent quality of life, and family services receipt as the proposed secondary outcome measures). Results Seventy-four families (95 carers) were recruited from three sites (with 37 families allocated to the intervention). From referrals, the recruitment rate was 65% (95% confidence interval 56% to 74%). Seventy-two per cent of families were retained at the 12-month follow-up (95% confidence interval 60% to 81%). Exploratory regression analysis showed that the mean Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale well-being score was 3.96 points higher in the intervention group (95% confidence interval –1.39 to 9.32 points) at 12 months post randomisation. High levels of data completeness were achieved on returned questionnaires. Interviews ( n = 25) confirmed that (1) recruitment, randomisation processes and the intervention were acceptable to family carers, E-PAtS facilitators and community staff; (2) E-PAtS delivery were consistent with the logic model; and (3) researchers requesting consent in future for routine data would be acceptable. Recorded E-PAtS sessions demonstrated good fidelity (96% of components present). Adherence (i.e. at least one carer from the family attending five out of eight E-PAtS sessions) was 76%. Health-related quality-of-life and services receipt data were gathered successfully. An online UK survey to assess usual practice ( n = 673) showed that 10% of families of young children with intellectual disability received any intervention over 12 months. A provider survey ( n = 15) indicated willingness to take part in future research. Limitations Obtaining session recordings for fidelity was difficult. Recruitment processes need to be reviewed to improve diversity and strategies are needed to improve primary outcome completion. Conclusions Study processes were feasible. The E-PAtS intervention was well received and outcomes for families were positive. A barrier to future organisation participation is funding for intervention costs. A definitive trial to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of E-PAtS would be feasible. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70419473. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research ; Vol. 10, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ABSTRACT ObjectivesTo use routinely collected datasets and data linkage to identify patterns of healthcare utilisation by children and young people (CYP) with adolescent mental health (AMH) disorders across the four UK Nations, with a particular focus on self-harm, anxiety and depression and eating disorders. The analysis will focus on healthcare utilisation during transition from child to adult services and, where possible, on the interface between different care settings e.g. primary and secondary care and health and social care. In addition we will determine the extent to which routinely collected datasets can contribute to an assessment of the health needs and the quality of care that CYP with AMH disorders receive. ApproachData has been requested from the national data providers in each country: The Health and Social Care Information Centre - England The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank - Wales Information Services Division – Scotland The Honest Broker Service- Northern Ireland As well as other sources: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink The Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network. A number of restrictions and information governance regulations have had to be negotiated and put in place in order to access and store the data in the SAIL Databank, Swansea University. Descriptive cross sectional analysis is underway to address the key questions. RationalThe project has arisen from the report ‘Overview of Child Deaths in Four UK Countries’ which found that 30-40% of 13-18 year olds were affected by mental health, learning difficulties or behavioural conditions. The diagnosis, management and services available for mental disorders in CYP are of growing concern and a source of controversy in the UK. Transitional care between child and adult services and the interface between primary and secondary/ specialist services, as well as, that between the NHS and other sectors is often disjointed. Thresholds for referral to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) are high and many adolescents are treated, at least initially, in primary health care systems. ImplicationsAnalysis of routinely collected health datasets has the potential to describe the nature and extent of health needs and health care utilisation for CYP with AMH disorders (self-harm, depression/anxiety, eating disorders). Furthermore the knowledge obtained from using routinely collected healthcare data, will inform future routine data collection across the UK for CYP with AMH disorders.