Search results

Bowring et al. describe ways of using the Behavior Problems Inventory – Short Form, illustrating how to use clinical norms to evaluate change. This commentary focuses on the importance of considering information gained directly from people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) during assessment. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A pilot project involved interviews with four children with IDD. A Talking Mats® (TM) framework was used to gather children’s views regarding challenging behaviours (CBs) and variables relevant to a functional behavioural assessment, such as things they found to be reinforcing, things that set the occasion for CB and things that helped prevent this.

The children were able to provide information and insight into several areas that are influential in the maintenance of behaviour that challenges. Some of this information may not have been obtainable from other sources or informants using traditional assessment methods alone.

Gathering the views of people with IDD is important. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2009) states that people have the right to be heard. Many people with IDD have difficulties communicating. A TM framework is one method by which people may be able to express their views. Taking the views of the individual into account during the process of gathering information about behaviours that challenge should lead to greater understanding of the functions of any behaviours and therefore to more targeted, acceptable and effective forms of support.

The purpose of this paper is to present an update on the Ealing Intensive Therapeutic and Short Breaks Service (ITSBS).

The challenges the service has faced are reviewed, including the service’s response to those challenges. Also provided is a more detailed analysis of the outcomes of the service.

The ITSBS continues to succeed in supporting young people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour to stay at home with their families.

Despite considerable challenges and adaptations to the model, the ITSBS is still achieving successful outcomes for vulnerable young people and is considered nationally to be a best-practice model. Few prior articles have provided an account of how innovative service models are maintained and evolve over time.

There is an apparent disconnect between the understanding of best practice and service delivery in the support of people with learning disabilities at risk of behaviours that challenge. We suggest, is a problem of implementation. The purpose of this paper is to explore reasons why this might be the case: a failure to recognise the collective works of successive generations of research and practice; and a failure to address the macro-systems involved and systems changes needed to support implementation.

This paper reviews the consensus that exists in respect of best practice. Drawing upon ideas from implementation science the paper highlights the complexities involved in the implementation of all evidence-based practices and uses this as a framework to propose ways in which an infrastructure that facilitates the delivery of services in the learning disabilities field might be built.

This paper highlights core recommended practices that have been consistent over time and across sources and identifies the systems involved in the implementation process. This paper demonstrates that many of the necessary building blocks of implementation already exist and suggests areas that are yet to be addressed. Critically, the paper highlights the importance of, and the part that all systems need to play in the process.

In the absence of any generalised implementation frameworks of evidence-based practice in the learning disabilities field, the paper suggests that the findings may provide the basis for understanding how the gap that exists between best practice and service delivery in the support of people with a learning disability at risk of behaviours that challenge might be closed.

Little is known about the characteristics of residential educational settings for young people with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD) in England. Previous research has focussed on the characteristics and experiences of the young people attending such settings rather than the setting itself; therefore, an overview of national provision is needed. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

As part of a larger project, data were collected for all residential schools and colleges in England. Data relate to settings offering residential provision for at least 4 nights per week for 30 weeks per year, either at the school/college itself, or in an associated residential home. Due to the remit of the main project, settings offering placements only to young people aged under 16 were excluded. Data were collected from a range of sources, including school/college websites, Ofsted and Department for Education resources, and liaison directly with the setting.

In total, 342 residential educational settings were identified with 57 of these offering post-16 provisions only. A range of data is presented about these settings, including location, placement numbers and types available, age range catered for, special educational needs categories registered for, governance arrangements (e.g. LA maintained, privately owned, and charitable organisation), and Ofsted educational ratings.

These data provide a national overview of residential educational settings for young people with IDD. This enables a clearer picture of the location and type of provision offered and allows comparisons both within and between areas.

With a historic lack of attention to synthesis methods such as systematic review and meta-analysis and a lack of randomised controlled trials, the evidence base for behavioural interventions for children and adults who are autistic or are diagnosed with developmental disabilities is patchy. The Sharland Foundation Developmental Disabilities Applied Behavioural Research and Impact Network (SF-DDARIN), a network of like-minded researchers and practitioners across the UK, aims to address this. The purpose of this paper is to describe the network’s work and provide the context for the remaining articles in the special issue that exemplify network projects.

In this case study paper, the authors describe how the SF-DDARIN works and is resourced, detailing the process used to maximise research opportunities by facilitating network members working together. The authors outline the progressive research steps that the SF-DDARIN has identified are needed to develop and improve the evidence base for behavioural interventions systematically and, with examples, describe how the network delivers these steps.

Since its establishment in 2016, the SF-DDARIN network members have collectively worked on more than 53 projects involving over 50 researchers, had over 120 special schools contribute to projects and have recruited over 500 participants. This has been achieved through funding from the Sharland Foundation, primarily to cover the staffing costs of a small support team and internship partnerships with external organisations. Some projects have attracted external funding.

SF-DDARIN may provide an innovative, effective and resource-efficient model for other groups seeking to develop and extend their evidence base in developmental disability research.

The purpose of this paper is to comment on “Early intervention for children with learning disabilities: making use of what we know.”

Narrative review and discussion.

The arguments presented by Nick Gore, Richard Hastings and Serena Brady are fully consistent with the broader scientific literature on prevention and the required future direction of English health policy.

This commentary places the arguments made by Gore et al. in a broader scientific and policy context.

The study investigated the frequency of adverse life events and prevalence of MD recorded for clients with intellectual disabilities (ID) in a medium secure unit, using data from an electronic patient record (EPR) system. Prevalence of MD was calculated on the basis of ICD‐10 diagnoses and a 38‐item checklist was developed to investigate adverse/traumatic life events for sub‐samples with and without MD. High rates of MD were reported overall, particularly of schizotypal and delusional disorders and disorders of personality. Adverse life events including abuse, bereavement and relationship difficulties had been documented by clinicians. The overall number of recorded events was significantly higher for clients diagnosed with a MD. Associations between MD and life events have been reported previously, but not in a forensic ID population. The study contributes to a growing body of literature highlighting the relationship between life events and mental health in people with ID, offering further information for service development and clinical practice.