OBJECTIVE: Community-based specialist behavior therapy teams may be helpful in managing challenging behavior, but evidence of their effectiveness is limited. This study was designed to examine the effectiveness and costs associated with treatment by a specialist behavior therapy team. METHOD: This was a parallel-group, randomized, single-blind controlled trial carried out in an intellectual disabilities service in England. Participants were 63 male and female service users with mild to severe intellectual disability who presented with challenging behavior. The interventions were standard treatment plus applied behavioral analysis (N=32) and standard treatment only (N=31). The primary outcome measure was challenging behavior, as measured by total and subscale scores on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist 3 and 6 months after randomization. Secondary outcome measures were psychiatric comorbidity assessed at 3 and 6 months using the Psychiatric Assessment Schedule for Adults With a Developmental Disability Checklist (PAS-ADD) and total costs recorded at 6 months. Multilevel modeling was used to compare square root transformations of Aberrant Behavior Checklist scores. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in the transformed total scores on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (difference=-0.89, 95% CI=-1.74 to -0.04) and transformed lethargy and hyperactivity subscale scores (common intervention effect=-0.56, 95% CI=-0.97 to -0.15). Standard care participants fared worse on the PAS-ADD comorbid organic disorder subscale. There was a clear trend for lower overall costs of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a specialist behavior therapy team in addition to standard treatment appears to be more effective in improving challenging behavior and may have financial advantages over standard treatment.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Community-based specialist behavior therapy teams may be helpful in managing challenging behavior, but evidence of their effectiveness is limited. This study was designed to examine the effectiveness and costs associated with treatment by a specialist behavior therapy team. METHOD: This was a parallel-group, randomized, single-blind controlled trial carried out in an intellectual disabilities service in England. Participants were 63 male and female service users with mild to severe intellectual disability who presented with challenging behavior. The interventions were standard treatment plus applied behavioral analysis (N=32) and standard treatment only (N=31). The primary outcome measure was challenging behavior, as measured by total and subscale scores on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist 3 and 6 months after randomization. Secondary outcome measures were psychiatric comorbidity assessed at 3 and 6 months using the Psychiatric Assessment Schedule for Adults With a Developmental Disability Checklist (PAS-ADD) and total costs recorded at 6 months. Multilevel modeling was used to compare square root transformations of Aberrant Behavior Checklist scores. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in the transformed total scores on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (difference=-0.89, 95% CI=-1.74 to -0.04) and transformed lethargy and hyperactivity subscale scores (common intervention effect=-0.56, 95% CI=-0.97 to -0.15). Standard care participants fared worse on the PAS-ADD comorbid organic disorder subscale. There was a clear trend for lower overall costs of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a specialist behavior therapy team in addition to standard treatment appears to be more effective in improving challenging behavior and may have financial advantages over standard treatment.
Authors: Johanna K Lake; Danica Denton; Yona Lunsky; Amy M Shui; Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele; Evdokia Anagnostou Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2017-05
Authors: Stephanie M Sansone; Keith F Widaman; Scott S Hall; Allan L Reiss; Amy Lightbody; Walter E Kaufmann; Elizabeth Berry-Kravis; Ave Lachiewicz; Elaine C Brown; David Hessl Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2012-07