Mental health problems affect people with intellectual disabilities (ID) at rates similar to or in excess of the non-ID population. People with severe ID are likely to have persistent mental health problems. In this systematic review (PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015024469), we identify and evaluate the methodological quality of available measures of mental health problems or well-being in individuals with severe or profound ID. Electronic searches of ten databases identified relevant publications. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts of retrieved records (n=41,232) and full-text articles (n=573). Data were extracted and the quality of included papers was appraised. Thirty-two papers reporting on 12 measures were included. Nine measures addressed a broad spectrum of mental health problems, and were largely observational. One physiological measure of well-being was included. The Aberrant Behavior Checklist, Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped Scale-II and Mood, Interest and Pleasure Questionnaire are reliable measures in this population. However, the psychometric properties of six other measures were only considered within a single study - indicating a lack of research replication. Few mental health measures are available for people with severe or profound ID, particularly lacking are tools measuring well-being. Assessment methods that do not rely on proxy reports should be explored further.

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.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a common lifelong condition affecting 1 in 100 people. ASD affects how a person relates to others and the world around them. Difficulty responding to sensory information (noise, touch, movement, taste, sight) is common, and might include feeling overwhelmed or distressed by loud or constant low-level noise (e.g. in the classroom). Affected children may also show little or no response to these sensory cues. These ‘sensory processing difficulties’ are associated with behaviour and socialisation problems, and affect education, relationships, and participation in daily life. Sensory integration therapy (SIT) is a face-to-face therapy or treatment provided by trained occupational therapists who use play-based sensory-motor activities and the just-right challenge to influence the way the child responds to sensation, reducing distress, and improving motor skills, adaptive responses, concentration, and interaction with others. With limited research into SIT, this protocol describes in detail how the intervention will be defined and evaluated. This is a two-arm pragmatic individually 1:1 randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot of SIT versus usual care for primary school aged children (aged 4 to 11 years) with ASD and sensory processing difficulties; 216 children will be recruited from multiple sources. Therapy will be delivered in clinics meeting full fidelity criteria for manualised SIT over 26 weeks (face-to-face sessions: two per week for 10 weeks, two per month for 2 months; telephone call: one per month for 2 months). Follow-up assessments will be completed at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. Prior to recruitment, therapists will be invited to participate in focus groups/interviews to explore what is delivered as usual care in trial regions; carers will be invited to complete an online survey to map out their experience of services. Following recruitment, carers will be given diaries to record their contact with services. Following intervention, carer and therapist interviews will be completed. Results of this trial will provide high-quality evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of SIT aimed at improving behavioural, functional, social, educational, and well-being outcomes for children and well-being outcomes for carers and families. ISRCTN14716440 . Registered on 8 November 2016.

Background: Obesity has significant health and NHS cost implications. Relatively small reductions in weight have clinically important benefits, but long-term weight loss maintenance (WLM) is challenging. Behaviour change interventions have been identified as key for WLM. Motivation is crucial to supporting behaviour change, and motivational interviewing (MI) has been identified as a successful approach to changing health behaviours. The study was designed as an adequately powered, pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT); however, owing to recruitment issues, the study became a feasibility trial.Objectives: To assess recruitment, retention, feasibility, acceptability, compliance and delivery of a 12-month intervention to support WLM. Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of the intervention on body mass index (BMI) and other secondary outcomes.Design: Three-arm individually randomised controlled trial comprising an intensive arm, a less intensive arm and a control arm.Setting: Community setting in South Wales and the East Midlands.Participants: Individuals aged 18–70 years with a current or previous BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m²who could provide evidence of at least 5% weight loss during the previous 12 months.Intervention: Participants received individually tailored MI, which included planning and self-monitoring. The intensive arm received six face-to-face sessions followed by nine telephone sessions. The less intensive arm received two face-to-face sessions followed by two telephone sessions. The control arm received a leaflet advising them on healthy lifestyle.Main outcome measures: Feasibility outcomes included numbers recruited, retention and adherence. The primary effectiveness outcome was BMI at 12 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, physical activity, proportion maintaining weight loss, diet, quality of life, health service resource usage, binge eating and well-being. A process evaluation assessed intervention delivery, adherence, and participants’ and practitioners’ views. Economic analysis aimed to assess cost-effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).Results: A total of 170 participants were randomised. Retention was good (84%) and adherence was excellent (intensive, 83%; less intensive, 91%). The between-group difference in mean BMI indicated the intensive arm had BMIs 1.0 kg/m²lower than the controls [95% confidence interval (CI) –2.2 kg/m²to 0.2 kg/m²]. Similarly, a potential difference was found in weight (average difference of 2.8 kg, 95% CI –6.1 kg to 0.5 kg). The intensive arm had odds of maintaining on average 43% [odds ratio(OR) 1.4, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.5] higher than controls. None of these findings were statistically significant. Further analyses controlling for level of adherence indicated that average BMI was 1.2 kg/m²lower in the intensive arm than the control arm (95% CI –2.5 kg/m²to 0.0 kg/m²). The intensive intervention led to a statistically significant difference in weight (mean –3.7 kg, 95% CI –7.1 kg to –0.3 kg). The other secondary outcomes showed limited evidence of differences between groups. The intervention was delivered as planned, and both practitioners and participants were positive about the intervention and its impact. Although not powered to assess cost-effectiveness, results of this feasibility study suggest that neither intervention as currently delivered is likely to be cost-effective in routine practice.Conclusion: This is the first trial of an intervention for WLM in the UK, the intervention is feasible and acceptable, and retention and adherence were high. The main effectiveness outcome showed a promising mean difference in the intensive arm. Owing to the small sample size, we are limited in the conclusions we can draw. However, findings suggest that the intensive intervention may facilitate long-term weight maintenance and, therefore, further testing in an effectiveness trial may be indicated. Research examining WLM is in its infancy, further research is needed to develop our understanding of WLM and to expand theory to inform the development of interventions to be tested in rigorously designed RCTs with cost-effectiveness assessed.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35774128.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Diabetes is the third most common chronic condition in childhood and poor glycaemic control leads to serious short-term and life-limiting long-term complications. In addition to optimal medical management, it is widely recognised that psychosocial and educational factors play a key role in improving outcomes for young people with diabetes. Recent systematic reviews of psycho-educational interventions recognise the need for new methods to be developed in consultation with key stakeholders including patients, their families and the multidisciplinary diabetes healthcare team. Following a development phase involving key stakeholders, a psychosocial intervention for use by paediatric diabetes staff and not requiring input from trained psychologists has been developed, incorporating a communication skills training programme for health professionals and a shared agenda-setting tool. The effectiveness of the intervention will be evaluated in a cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT). The primary outcome, to be measured in children aged 4-15 years diagnosed with type 1 diabetes for at least one year, is the effect on glycaemic control (HbA1c) during the year after training of the healthcare team is completed. Secondary outcomes include quality of life for patients and carers and cost-effectiveness. Patient and carer preferences for service delivery will also be assessed. Twenty-six paediatric diabetes teams are participating in the trial, recruiting a total of 700 patients for evaluation of outcome measures. Half the participating teams will be randomised to receive the intervention at the beginning of the trial and remaining centres offered the training package at the end of the one year trial period. The primary aim of the trial is to determine whether a communication skills training intervention for specialist paediatric diabetes teams will improve clinical and psychological outcomes for young people with type 1 diabetes. Previous research indicates the effectiveness of specialist psychological interventions in achieving sustained improvements in glycaemic control. This trial will evaluate an intervention which does not require the involvement of trained psychologists, maximising the potential feasibility of delivery in a wider NHS context. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61568050.