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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |