Cargando…

Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of PBS-based staff training for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability

BACKGROUND: Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) for challenging behaviour is a complex intervention. Process evaluation is pivotal in fully understanding the mechanisms and contextual factors that impact on participant outcomes. AIMS: To conduct a process evaluation of a national clinical trial investi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bosco, Alessandro, Paulauskaite, Laura, Hall, Ian, Crabtree, Jason, Soni, Sujata, Biswas, Asit, Cooper, Vivien, Poppe, Michaela, King, Michael, Strydom, Andre, Crawford, Michael J., Hassiotis, Angela
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6705827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31437228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221507
_version_ 1783445632732626944
author Bosco, Alessandro
Paulauskaite, Laura
Hall, Ian
Crabtree, Jason
Soni, Sujata
Biswas, Asit
Cooper, Vivien
Poppe, Michaela
King, Michael
Strydom, Andre
Crawford, Michael J.
Hassiotis, Angela
author_facet Bosco, Alessandro
Paulauskaite, Laura
Hall, Ian
Crabtree, Jason
Soni, Sujata
Biswas, Asit
Cooper, Vivien
Poppe, Michaela
King, Michael
Strydom, Andre
Crawford, Michael J.
Hassiotis, Angela
author_sort Bosco, Alessandro
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) for challenging behaviour is a complex intervention. Process evaluation is pivotal in fully understanding the mechanisms and contextual factors that impact on participant outcomes. AIMS: To conduct a process evaluation of a national clinical trial investigating the impact of PBS-based staff training on the level of challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability. METHOD: The Medical Research Council guidance for process evaluation of complex interventions was followed. Semi-structured interviews with 62 stakeholders from the intervention arm (service users, family and paid carers, service managers, staff who delivered the intervention and PBS trainers), quantitative data from the study database and an external evaluation of the quality of the PBS plans were used. RESULTS: Twenty-one health staff volunteered to be trained in delivering PBS. Available log data from 17 therapists revealed that they worked with 63 participants a median of 11.50 hours (IQR 8–32). Only 33 out of 108 reports had included all elements of the intervention. Another 47 reports had some elements of the intervention. All PBS plans were rated weak, indicating insufficient quality to impact challenging behaviour. Stakeholders reported an appreciation of PBS and its potential to impact quality of care and engagement with the participant. However, they also identified important challenges including managing PBS-related caseloads, paid carer turnover and service commitment to the delivery of PBS. CONCLUSIONS: PBS-based staff training was well received, but therapists found it difficult to undertake all the elements of the intervention in routine care. Implementing a workforce training strategy is important to better define the active components of PBS, and resource implications if the intervention is no better than usual care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6705827
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67058272019-09-04 Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of PBS-based staff training for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability Bosco, Alessandro Paulauskaite, Laura Hall, Ian Crabtree, Jason Soni, Sujata Biswas, Asit Cooper, Vivien Poppe, Michaela King, Michael Strydom, Andre Crawford, Michael J. Hassiotis, Angela PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) for challenging behaviour is a complex intervention. Process evaluation is pivotal in fully understanding the mechanisms and contextual factors that impact on participant outcomes. AIMS: To conduct a process evaluation of a national clinical trial investigating the impact of PBS-based staff training on the level of challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability. METHOD: The Medical Research Council guidance for process evaluation of complex interventions was followed. Semi-structured interviews with 62 stakeholders from the intervention arm (service users, family and paid carers, service managers, staff who delivered the intervention and PBS trainers), quantitative data from the study database and an external evaluation of the quality of the PBS plans were used. RESULTS: Twenty-one health staff volunteered to be trained in delivering PBS. Available log data from 17 therapists revealed that they worked with 63 participants a median of 11.50 hours (IQR 8–32). Only 33 out of 108 reports had included all elements of the intervention. Another 47 reports had some elements of the intervention. All PBS plans were rated weak, indicating insufficient quality to impact challenging behaviour. Stakeholders reported an appreciation of PBS and its potential to impact quality of care and engagement with the participant. However, they also identified important challenges including managing PBS-related caseloads, paid carer turnover and service commitment to the delivery of PBS. CONCLUSIONS: PBS-based staff training was well received, but therapists found it difficult to undertake all the elements of the intervention in routine care. Implementing a workforce training strategy is important to better define the active components of PBS, and resource implications if the intervention is no better than usual care. Public Library of Science 2019-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6705827/ /pubmed/31437228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221507 Text en © 2019 Bosco et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bosco, Alessandro
Paulauskaite, Laura
Hall, Ian
Crabtree, Jason
Soni, Sujata
Biswas, Asit
Cooper, Vivien
Poppe, Michaela
King, Michael
Strydom, Andre
Crawford, Michael J.
Hassiotis, Angela
Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of PBS-based staff training for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability
title Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of PBS-based staff training for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability
title_full Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of PBS-based staff training for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability
title_fullStr Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of PBS-based staff training for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability
title_full_unstemmed Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of PBS-based staff training for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability
title_short Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of PBS-based staff training for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability
title_sort process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of pbs-based staff training for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6705827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31437228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221507
work_keys_str_mv AT boscoalessandro processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability
AT paulauskaitelaura processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability
AT hallian processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability
AT crabtreejason processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability
AT sonisujata processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability
AT biswasasit processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability
AT coopervivien processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability
AT poppemichaela processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability
AT kingmichael processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability
AT strydomandre processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability
AT crawfordmichaelj processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability
AT hassiotisangela processevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpbsbasedstafftrainingforchallengingbehaviourinadultswithintellectualdisability