Samantha Flynn1, Vasiliki Totsika2,3, Richard P Hastings1,3, Kerry Hood4, Sandy Toogood5, David Felce6. 1. Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research (CEDAR), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 2. CEDAR and Centre for Education Studies (CES), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 3. Centre for Developmental Psychiatry and Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia. 4. Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 5. Bangor University, Bangor, UK. 6. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The review examined the effectiveness of Active Support (RQ1) and stakeholders' experiences of the model (RQ2). METHOD: Data were meta-analysed (RQ1; studies = 14) and synthesized narratively (RQ2; studies = 10). RESULTS: By follow-up (6 months post-training), effect sizes (RQ1) for resident total activity engagement were significant and ranged from small (d = 0.33, 95% CIs: 0.10-0.50) to large (Tau-U = 0.95, 95% CIs: 0.64-1.25) depending on study design. Follow-up changes in staff assistance were moderate (d = 0.56, 95% CIs: 0.23-0.89; Tau-U 0.63, 95% CIs: 0.32-0.93) and large for quality of support (d = 1.03, 95% CIs: 0.61-1.44). Other outcomes did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Active Support was more effective following complete staff training, in larger settings, at lower staff-to-resident ratios and with less experienced staff. Active Support training and outcomes were valued by staff and residents (RQ2), and staff experienced increased job satisfaction. Lower staff turnover and organizational readiness appear crucial for maintaining implementation.
BACKGROUND: The review examined the effectiveness of Active Support (RQ1) and stakeholders' experiences of the model (RQ2). METHOD: Data were meta-analysed (RQ1; studies = 14) and synthesized narratively (RQ2; studies = 10). RESULTS: By follow-up (6 months post-training), effect sizes (RQ1) for resident total activity engagement were significant and ranged from small (d = 0.33, 95% CIs: 0.10-0.50) to large (Tau-U = 0.95, 95% CIs: 0.64-1.25) depending on study design. Follow-up changes in staff assistance were moderate (d = 0.56, 95% CIs: 0.23-0.89; Tau-U 0.63, 95% CIs: 0.32-0.93) and large for quality of support (d = 1.03, 95% CIs: 0.61-1.44). Other outcomes did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Active Support was more effective following complete staff training, in larger settings, at lower staff-to-resident ratios and with less experienced staff. Active Support training and outcomes were valued by staff and residents (RQ2), and staff experienced increased job satisfaction. Lower staff turnover and organizational readiness appear crucial for maintaining implementation.