Dataset Information

Protocol for a feasibility study and randomised pilot trial of a low-intensity psychological intervention for depression in adults with autism: the Autism Depression Trial (ADEPT).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

High rates of co-occurring depression are reported in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by social communication impairments and repetitive behaviours. Cognitive-behavioural interventions adapted for ASD have been effective for anxiety problems. There have been evaluation studies of group cognitive-behavioural therapy for co-occurring depression, but no randomised trials investigating low-intensity psychological interventions as recommended in clinical guidelines for mild-moderate depression.

Methods and analysis

A feasibility study comprising a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and nested qualitative evaluation is under way as preparation for a definitive RCT. Participants (n=70) will be randomised to Guided Self-Help: a low-intensity psychological intervention based on behavioural activation adapted for ASD or treatment as usual. Outcomes including depression symptoms, anxiety, social function and service use will be measured at 10, 16 and 24 weeks postrandomisation and will be blind to group allocation for measures that are not self-administered. The analysis will aim to establish the rates of recruitment and retention for a larger-scale RCT as well as the most appropriate measure of depression to serve as primary outcome. The qualitative study will purposively sample up to 24 participants from each treatment group to consider the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and the trial design.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval has been received from WALES REC 3 (IRAS project ID: 191558) and the Health Research Authority with R&D approval from Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear Foundation NHS Trusts. To our knowledge, this is the first study of a low-intensity intervention for depression in adults with autism. The results will inform the design of a definitive RCT. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed journal publications reporting the quantitative and qualitative research findings of the study and presentations at national and international conferences.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN54650760; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Russell A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5736092 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile existing psychological treatments for depression are effective for many, a significant proportion of depressed individuals do not respond to current approaches and few remain well over the long-term. Anhedonia (a loss of interest or pleasure) is a core symptom of depression which predicts a poor prognosis but has been neglected by existing treatments. Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT) has been co-designed with service users to better target anhedonia alongside other features of depression. This mixed methods pilot trial aims to establish proof of concept for ADepT and to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a future definitive trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ADepT, compared to an evidence-based mainstream therapy (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; CBT) in the acute treatment of depression, the prevention of subsequent depressive relapse, and the enhancement of wellbeing.MethodsWe aim to recruit 80 depressed participants and randomise them 1:1 to receive ADepT (15 weekly acute and 5 booster sessions in following year) or CBT (20 weekly acute sessions). Clinical and health economic assessments will take place at intake and at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up. Reductions in PHQ-9 depression severity and increases in WEMWBS wellbeing at 6-month assessment (when acute treatment should be completed) are the co-primary outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation will assess mechanism of action, implementation issues, and contextual moderating factors. To evaluate proof of concept, intake-post effect sizes and the proportion of individuals showing reliable and clinically significant change on outcome measures in each arm at each follow-up will be reported. To evaluate feasibility and acceptability, we will examine recruitment, retention, treatment completion, and data completeness rates and feedback from patients and therapists about their experience of study participation and therapy. Additionally, we will establish the cost of delivery of ADepT.DiscussionWe will proceed to definitive trial if any concerns about the safety, acceptability, feasibility, and proof of concept of ADepT and trial procedures can be rectified, and we recruit, retain, and collect follow-up data on at least 60% of the target sample.Trial registrationISCRTN85278228, registered 27/03/2017.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Incidence of autistic traits, mental health problems, stress and poor coping is high among family members of children with autism. These problems are coupled with challenging behaviour among children with autism. Current treatment for these families is disjointed and costly. The need for whole family support is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations, developments regarding children's service provision, research and requests by families of children with autism. Despite evidence that family therapies can provide benefits to these families, efficacy has not been subject to a randomised controlled trial. Systemic Autism-related Family Enabling (SAFE) is a new family therapy intervention designed specifically for families of children with autism. We aim to establish the feasibility of running a fully powered randomised controlled trial to evaluate SAFE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Families of children with autism aged 3-16 years will be invited to participate. Consenting participants will be randomised 2:1 to either SAFE+support as usual or support as usual alone. The proposed primary outcome measure for the main trial will be the Systemic CORE 15. Participants will also complete proposed secondary outcome measures, indexing changes in child behaviour, child-parent attachment, anxiety and depression. Generic health economic outcome measures (EuroQol 5 dimensions and Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions) will also provide data on the feasibility of cost-effectiveness analysis. Questionnaires will be completed at baseline and 32 weeks post-allocation. Data on ability to identify, recruit, randomise, retain and collect data from families, acceptability of outcome measures, adherence of therapists and families to the intervention, appropriateness of resource use questionnaires and effectiveness of training will be collected for feasibility analysis. Qualitative data will also explore acceptability of SAFE and reasons for declining and withdrawing from the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The current trial protocol received ethical approval from the South West-Exeter Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/SW/0192). The findings of the trial will be disseminated in collaboration with our Family Consultation Group and other partners. Findings will be shared locally, nationally and internationally through events, conferences and published papers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISCTRN83964946 (Pre-results) IRAS 213527.

Project description:Feasibility studyObjectives:Refine a bespoke enhanced support intervention (ESI) (including self-help materials, intervention manual and training) for implementation by community pharmacy (CP) staff to people with sub-threshold depression and long-term conditions (LTCs) based upon evidence-supported interventions in primary careDevelop and refine study procedures (recruitment strategies and set up, screening, participant recruitment, assessment, suitability of outcome measures and data collection procedures) for testing in the pilot study phaseDesign: A case series/qualitative studySetting: UK community pharmacyPopulation: Adults with long-term health conditions who screen-positive for depression but who do not reach the threshold for DSM IV Moderate Depressive disorderIntervention: Enhanced support intervention (ESI) delivered by an appropriately trained community pharmacy team member involving four to six sessions over four months. ESI is a modified form of an intervention within the collaborative care framework for sub-threshold depression validated in previous studies in UK primary care which appears suitable for implementation in community settings.Sample size: 20-30 participantsOutcomes: Study implementation (recruitment and attrition rates), quality of data collection at baseline and 4 months and ESI adherence (number of contacts, DNA and drop out) as per objectives 1a/bQualitative evaluation: Semi-structured interviews with up to 10 participants and ESI facilitators and focus group(s) (range of pharmacy staff n =?8-10) will be conducted to explore the acceptability of the intervention and feasibility of the study, training and study procedures.External pilot studyObjectives:Quantify the flow of participants (eligibility, recruitment and follow-up rate)Evaluate proposed recruitment, assessment and outcome measure collection methodsExamine the delivery of the enhanced support intervention in a community pharmacy setting (intervention uptake, retention and dose) to inform process evaluationProcess evaluation, using semi-structured interviews with participants across a range of socio-economic settings, and pharmacy staff to explore the acceptability of the ESI within community pharmacy, elements of the intervention that were considered useful (or not) and appropriateness of study proceduresDesign: Pilot randomised controlled trial, including a prospective economic and qualitative evaluationSetting: As abovePopulation: As aboveIntervention: As above with adaptations post feasibility studyComparator: Usual careSample size: 100 participantsOutcomes: Data will be used to estimate recruitment, intervention delivery and study completion rates as per objectives 2a-d. Definitive estimates of the effectiveness of ESI will not be made.Primary outcome: Depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire 9) at four months.Secondary outcomes: Patient acceptance, uptake and attrition. ICD10 depression status, anxiety (GAD 7), health-related quality of life (SF-12v2) and health-state utility (EQ5D 3L) will be measured at four months.Economic evaluation: The incremental cost per QALY will be calculated from both the NHS and societal perspective.Process evaluation: Using mixed methods, potential mediators/moderators of the intervention, the acceptability (to participants and pharmacy staff), barriers and facilitators to the use of ESI in community pharmacy, and impact on usual practice will be examined. Semi-structured interviews with approximately 30 study participants, 20 pharmacy staff and eight GPs near participating pharmacies will be conducted.Trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN11290592Protocol version number: Version 4.1 (dated 16th January 2018)Study Sponsor Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust.

Project description:ObjectivesTo establish the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial of Systemic Autism-related Family Enabling (SAFE), an intervention for families of children with autism.DesignA randomised, controlled, multicentred feasibility study.SettingParticipants were identified from three National Health Service (NHS) diagnosing centres in Plymouth and Cornwall and a community pathway.Participants34 families of a child with a diagnosis of autism severity level 1 or 2 between 3 and 16 years. Four families were lost to follow-up.InterventionsSAFE is a manualised five-session family therapy-based intervention delivered over 16 weeks and designed for families of children with autism. SAFE involves families attending five 3-hour sessions led by systemic practitioners.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe proposed primary outcome measure was the Systemic CORE 15 (SCORE-15). Proposed secondary outcome measures: Patient Health Questionnaire-Somatic Anxiety Depressive Symptoms, the Coding of Attachment-Related Parenting for use with children with Autism, the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL), the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ) and the Caregiving Helplessness Questionnaire. Outcome measures were collected at baseline and 24 weeks post randomisation.ResultsAll primary caregivers retained in the study completed the SCORE-15 at both time points. 34 of the target of 36 families were recruited and 88% of families were retained. Training for therapists was effective. Feedback revealed willingness to undergo randomisation. There was 100% attendance at appropriate sessions for core family members. The SCORE-15 showed reduction in scores for families receiving SAFE compared with controls suggesting positive change. Qualitative data also revealed that families found the study acceptable and families receiving SAFE experienced positive change. Feedback indicated that the SCORE-15 should be retained as a primary measure in a future trial, but secondary measures should be reduced.ConclusionsThis study indicates that a larger trial of SAFE is feasible. Findings suggest that SAFE can address current gaps in recommended care, can be confidently delivered by NHS staff and has potential as a beneficial treatment.Trial registration numbersISCTRN83964946 and IRAS213527.

Project description:BackgroundOvergeneralised self-blame and worthlessness are key symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) and have previously been associated with self-blame-selective changes in connectivity between right superior anterior temporal lobe (rSATL) and subgenual frontal cortices. Another study showed that remitted MDD patients were able to modulate this neural signature using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) neurofeedback training, thereby increasing their self-esteem. The feasibility and potential of using this approach in symptomatic MDD were unknown.MethodThis single-blind pre-registered randomised controlled pilot trial probed a novel self-guided psychological intervention with and without additional rSATL-posterior subgenual cortex (BA25) fMRI neurofeedback, targeting self-blaming emotions in people with insufficiently recovered MDD and early treatment-resistance (n = 43, n = 35 completers). Participants completed three weekly self-guided sessions to rebalance self-blaming biases.ResultsAs predicted, neurofeedback led to a training-induced reduction in rSATL-BA25 connectivity for self-blame v. other-blame. Both interventions were safe and resulted in a 46% reduction on the Beck Depression Inventory-II, our primary outcome, with no group differences. Secondary analyses, however, revealed that patients without DSM-5-defined anxious distress showed a superior response to neurofeedback compared with the psychological intervention, and the opposite pattern in anxious MDD. As predicted, symptom remission was associated with increases in self-esteem and this correlated with the frequency with which participants employed the psychological strategies in daily life.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that self-blame-rebalance neurofeedback may be superior over a solely psychological intervention in non-anxious MDD, although further confirmatory studies are needed. Simple self-guided strategies tackling self-blame were beneficial, but need to be compared against treatment-as-usual in further trials. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10526888.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on complex interventions advocates pilot trials and feasibility studies as part of a phased approach to the development, testing, and evaluation of healthcare interventions. In this paper we discuss the results of a recent feasibility study and pilot trial for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of pelvic floor muscle training for prolapse (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01136889). The ways in which researchers decide to respond to the results of feasibility work may have significant repercussions for both the nature and degree of tension between internal and external validity in a definitive trial.MethodsWe used methodological issues to classify and analyze the problems that arose in the feasibility study. Four centers participated with the aim of randomizing 50 women. Women were eligible if they had prolapse of any type, of stage I to IV, and had a pessary successfully fitted. Postal questionnaires were administered at baseline, 6 months, and 7 months post-randomization. After identifying problems arising within the pilot study we then sought to locate potential solutions that might minimize the trade-off between a subsequent explanatory versus pragmatic trial.ResultsThe feasibility study pointed to significant potential problems in relation to participant recruitment, features of the intervention, acceptability of the intervention to participants, and outcome measurement. Finding minimal evidence to support our decision-making regarding the transition from feasibility work to a trial, we developed a systematic process (A process for Decision-making after Pilot and feasibility Trials (ADePT)) which we subsequently used as a guide. The process sought to: 1) encourage the systematic identification and appraisal of problems and potential solutions; 2) improve the transparency of decision-making processes; and 3) reveal the tensions that exist between pragmatic and explanatory choices.ConclusionsWe have developed a process that may aid researchers in their attempt to identify the most appropriate solutions to problems identified within future pilot and feasibility RCTs. The process includes three key steps: a decision about the type of problem, the identification of all solutions (whether addressed within the intervention, trial design or clinical context), and a systematic appraisal of these solutions.

Project description:IntroductionOne in eight women suffer from depression during pregnancy. Currently, low-intensity brief treatment based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the only talking treatment widely available in the National Health Service (NHS) for mild and moderate depression. CBT involves identifying and changing unhelpful negative thoughts and behaviours to improve mood. Mothers in our patient advisory groups requested greater treatment choice. Interpersonal counselling (IPC) is a low-intensity version of interpersonal therapy. It may have important advantages during pregnancy over CBT because it targets relationship problems, changes in role and previous losses (eg, miscarriage). We aim to compare CBT and IPC for pregnant women with depression in a feasibility study.Methods and analysisA two-arm non-blinded randomised feasibility study of 60 women will be conducted in two UK localities. Women with depression will be identified through midwife clinics and ultrasound scanning appointments and randomised to receive six sessions of IPC or CBT. In every other way, these women will receive usual care. Women thought to have severe depression will be referred for more intensive treatment. After 12 weeks, we will measure women's mood, well-being, relationship satisfaction and use of healthcare. Women, their partners and staff providing treatments will be interviewed to understand whether IPC is an acceptable approach and whether changes should be introduced before applying to run a larger trial.Several groups of patients with depression during pregnancy have contributed to our study design. A patient advisory group will meet and advise us during the study.Ethics and disseminationStudy results will inform the design of a larger multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT). Our findings will be shared through public engagement events, papers and reports to organisations within the NHS. National Research Ethics Service Committee approved the study protocol.Trial registration numberISRCTN11513120.