Depression is a common mental health problem in the overall adult population, regardless of the presence of a physical or learning disability. Depressive symptoms, however, appear more persistent and resistant to treatment in adults with learning disabilities.
Treatment options generally comprise anti-depressant medication and/or psychosocial interventions, with particular attention given to cognitive behavioural therapies, behavioural activation, and more recently mindfulness-based therapies. The range of psychosocial approaches offered to people with learning disabilities, however, is often limited to cognitive behavioural therapies for which the evidence base is strongest. This leaves them with little choice of treatment, despite behavioural activation being found equally effective in the general population.
Behavioural activation is more than merely increasing activity levels, instead it intends to increase purposeful behaviour directed at situations and environmental factors that are likely to be associated with improvements in mood and depressive thoughts.
In this study, the researchers explored the feasibility and efficacy of an individual behavioural activation intervention for adults with depressed mood in Scotland.
Methods
The pilot study used a single group design in which adults with learning disabilities were recruited to complete a behavioural activation intervention. Potential participants were referred to the study by clinicians and community nurses who identified the person as having both a learning disability and depressive symptoms.
The intervention was based on a brief behavioural activation treatment used in the general population1(Lejuez et al 2001). In addition to making session materials accessible to people with learning disabilities, the researchers adapted the intervention to target both the person with a learning disability and one significant other, typically a paid carer or family carer. The intervention was delivered by a research psychologist, under the supervision of an experienced clinical psychologist and ran over 10 to 12 weekly or fortnightly sessions at the clients’ home.
Masked assessment of depressive symptoms, activity levels and general well-being was conducted at three time intervals: prior to the intervention, after 3 months and upon completing the intervention, and a follow-up 6 months after starting the intervention.
Results
Twenty-one out of twenty-three recruited participants and their supporters completed the intervention, with a further two participants dropping out prior to the follow-up assessments. This illustrates that it is possible to identify people with depressive symptoms and that the behavioural activation intervention was well-received.
Upon completing the intervention, depressive symptoms had decreased substantially, as recorded by both self-reports and supporter ratings. These changes in mood continued to improve between post-intervention and follow-up.
Behavioural activation did not lead to a significant increase in either community-based activities (for example, pub visits or engaging in sports activities) or domestic activities (for example, cleaning, gardening or cooking).
Finally, the changes in depressive symptoms were accompanied by a simultaneous improvement in general well-being, as reported by the supporters.
Conclusions
Behavioural activation appeared a feasible, acceptable, and possibly effective intervention to treat depressive symptoms in adults with learning disabilities. These findings, however, require replication in larger trials comparing its efficacy to that of a control group.
Strengths and limitations
First, it needs to be clarified that the behavioural activation intervention was not limited to activity planning, but also provided the client and their supporter with an opportunity to explore potential challenges they might face. This included addressing associated anxiety and anger issues.
Second, as with most small-scale pilot studies, there are a few limitations in terms of the sampling strategy. The signposting approach taken by the researchers may have identified people who would be expected to respond well to this type of intervention, and people with less severe depressive symptoms. Indeed, nearly half of the clients did not score above the clinical cut-off for depression at the start of the intervention. However, even for these sub-clinical clients improvements in mood were observed. Likewise, it could be argued that the nine people living in individual tenancies would be more independent and have more control over the scheduling of planned activities compared to those living in residential services with already over-stretched staff.
Third, the apparent lack of change in people’s participation in community and domestic activities may be indicative that the measures used to assess participation may be inappropriate for this study, rather than there being no intervention effect. This may be due to activities requiring more coordination to organise, but could also occur when the new ‘purposeful’ activities replace previously scheduled activities and therefore do not increase the frequency of participation in activities. To assess the behavioural impact of the intervention on activity participation these measure would need to address the meaningfulness and value of these activities for the person, in addition to the frequency of these activities.
Summary
In spite of its limitations in terms of sample size, lack of a control condition, potentially biased recruitment and appropriateness of assessment measures, this study makes a strong case for offering behavioural activation interventions to people with learning disabilities and low mood. Furthermore, the positive effects of behavioural activation extent to the supporters who reported an increased understanding of difficulties faced by their clients, which could only benefit their relationship and well-being.
The possibility to offer behavioural activation interventions led by a trained lay-therapist under the supervision of an experienced clinician is particularly encouraging given the search for accessible mental health services and treatments.
Taken together, the findings are promising and, if supported in future research, would widen the range of psychosocial treatments available to people with learning disabilities.
Links
A feasibility study of behavioural activation for depressive symptoms in adults with intellectual disabilities, Jahoda, A., Melville, C. A., Pert, C., Cooper, S.-A., Lynn, H., Williams, C. and Davidson, C. in Journal of Intellectual Disability Research [abstract]
References
Lejuez, C. W., Hopko, D. R., & Hopko, S. D. A. (2001). Brief behavioral activation treatment for depression. Treatment manual. Behaviour Modification, 25, 255-286.
Key points
– Planning purposeful activities with a supporter may improve depressive symptoms.
– Behavioural activation does not increase actual participation in activities.
– Including a significant other may have benefits for both the person with a learning disability, as well as their carer.
– Widening the range of evidence-based treatments: behavioural activation shows promising results in treating depression.
Thanks for this blog Leen.
Your summary starts with this sentence:
“In spite of its limitations in terms of sample size, lack of a control condition, potentially biased recruitment and appropriateness of assessment measures, this study makes a strong case for offering behavioural activation interventions to people with learning disabilities and low mood.”
You recognise many of the biases of this study in the opening half of that sentence, but despite these many flaws in the research design you conclude that this is a ‘promising’ treatment. I find it hard to reconcile these two. For me, the study suffers from far too many biases for this conclusion to be drawn.
I recognise that the quality and methodological rigour in learning disabilities research is some way behind my field (mental health), but I think it’s important to apply the same approach to critical appraisal that we would do if we were appraising a large scale RCT. If you did this, how would behavioural activation compare with other standard treatments (antidepressants, CBT etc) for people with learning disabilities and depression?
Cheers,
André
James Lind Library: biases: http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/research-topics/biases/
CASP tools and checklists: http://www.casp-uk.net/#!checklists/cb36
Hi André,
many thanks for your message. It’s good to see that a blog can evoke a response and start a discussion.
I recognise myself in your comment in that a number of clear limitations seem irreconcilable with a positive note, but I would like to respond to clarify how I came to my conclusion.
First, it is clear that the design of the study does not allow us to draw strong conclusions and that it doesn’t contribute to a strong evidence base for behavioural activation interventions in the way a well-conducted randomised controlled trial would. The authors have recognised and discussed the main limitations of the study in the original paper, as well, which I can only applaud.
Second, in developing evidence-based interventions RCT’s are indeed required, which is where this study lacks methodological quality. Research in the field of learning disabilities may be lagging behind in comparison to the mainstream mental health research, but the field is catching up and large scale RCT’s are being conducted. In fact, the pilot study which the authors presented here is currently being followed up with a large-scale trial in which most, if not all, of the current limitations are addressed. For more information about this trial: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/1010434
Although I acknowledge that RCT’s form the basis of evidence-based interventions, it is often difficult to conduct such a trial with people with learning disabilities; difficulties are associated with ethical concerns, recruitment, but also with funding. Finding sufficient funding for a large scale trial is particularly difficult for an intervention in a population for which hardly any evidence is available, even low quality evidence in the form of case series and uncontrolled designs.
Hence, the first steps in building evidence for a new treatment approach (in people with learning disabilities) will always be small-scale trials that highlight potential difficulties, trial treatment protocols, and give an indication of what treatment effects might be expected.
If we were to wait for funding agencies and research councils to back large-scale RCT’s of an intervention that hasn’t been trialed in a small sample and hardly has any available evidence, then I’m afraid no such RCT’s would be conducted and the evidence base for psychological interventions would be non-existent. It would be equally difficult to find funding for a large trial of an intervention that hasn’t been able to show even minimal effects in a small uncontrolled trial. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to look at these small scale studies and acknowledge their limitations, whilst also appraising their findings as a step towards building an evidence base.
The treatment effects reported in this study are promising in two ways:
1. They show that some people benefited from an intervention (although further research is required to determine the active ingredients)
2. They pave the way for large scale RCT trials to be conducted which can contribute to the evidence base, even when the findings of those studies would find no treatment effects.
I hope I have addressed your concerns, but would happily discuss it further with you.
Kind regards,
Leen
Hi Leen,
Thanks for your detailed reply. It’s encouraging to see that the pilot study you blogged about is being followed up by a large trial. I’m sure readers of the Learning Disabilities Elf would be interested in finding out more about that. I hope you can blog about it when it’s published.
For me, the fundamental question I asked after reading your blog was: So what? Is this evidence good enough to influence or change practice? Ultimately, that’s the question we are always interested in answering with our blogs.
Do you think this pilot study is sufficient for behavioural activation interventions to be offered to people with learning disabilities and low mood, or would you be more cautious and wait for more robust research?
Cheers,
André
Hi André,
It’s good to be having a discussion about the quality of the evidence base for psychological intervention in people with learning disabilities and I am sure that clinicians, parents, researchers and all practitioners agree that we should all be working together to develop a strong evidence base.
Turning to your question whether the evidence presented in this paper is sufficiently strong to influence practice? Yes, to an extent. No, to an extent. Let me clarify that.
No, the current evidence isn’t sufficient to support and offer behavioural activation as an intervention with expected high treatment effects.
No, the current evidence should not guide policy makers to recommend behavioural activation as the first cause of action.
To be able to turn these No’s into Yes’es we need more robust research. In fact, there is a great need for more intervention research on treatments for depression in learning disabilities in general. In our recent review, we found very limited evidence (only two controlled studies, but no RCT’s) for any treatment of depression.
But on the other hand…
Yes. Behavioural activation has been shown to be effective in reducing depressive symptoms in the general population, so it may have positive effects on people with mild and borderline learning disabilities.
Yes. By providing behavioural activation interventions to people with learning disabilities in daily practice and other small-scale studies, we will be able to identify potential barriers specific to people with learning disabilities: for example, how does the dependency on carers impact upon the acceptability and feasibility of behavioural activation interventions?
To summarise, behavioural activation may be effective in reducing depressive symptoms in people with learning disabilities. Whilst robust research is needed to support behavioural activation (or any psychological intervention!) as an evidence-based treatment, I would prefer practitioners offering an intervention with a limited evidence base over no intervention at all.
Kind regards,
Leen
More information can be found here:
– A recent review on the efficacy of psychological therapies for people with learning disabilities (including depression): Vereenooghe, L., & Langdon, P. E. (2013). Psychological therapies for people with intellectual
disabilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34,
4085–4102. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.08.030 http://tinyurl.com/kwoypoq
– A systematic review of behavioural activation in the general population: Cuijpers, P., Van Straten, A., & Warmerdam, L. (2007). Behavioral activation treatments of depression: A meta-analysis. Clinical psychology review, 27(3), 318-326. http://tinyurl.com/pl33dch
– A Cochrane review of treatments for depression, including behavioural activation: Churchill R, Moore THM, Furukawa TA, Caldwell DM, Davies P, Jones H, Shinohara K, Imai H, Lewis G, Hunot V. ‘Third wave’ cognitive and behavioural therapies versus treatment as usual for depression. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD008705. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008705.pub2. http://tinyurl.com/q7ztuuz
Hi Leen,
I agree – we need to have this discussion more. Perhaps we could make it the focus of a @WeNurses or @WeLDNurses tweet chat at some point?
I agree with your comments. The one thing that I can think of that you didn’t mention is adverse effects. We know that any treatment that’s powerful enough to have an effect, is also likely to produce side effects. I guess that would be my main concern with proceeding with this kind of intervention for people with learning disabilities and depression, based on this level of evidence. Can we be sure that we will be doing more good than harm?
Cheers,
André
A pilot study shows that planning purposeful activities with a supporter may improve depressive symptoms http://t.co/SExj1c6GFE
Don’t miss: Behavioural activation shows promising results in treating depressive symptoms http://t.co/SExj1c6GFE #EBP
Behavioural activation promising in treating depressive symptoms http://t.co/OOuaXm49wa
Following up on the discussion with André below, I agree that a twitter chat may be an interesting medium to have a wider discussion about the development and support of evidence-based treatments in people with learning disabilities (compared to, for example, not offering any treatment at all or offering a treatment that has proven effective in the general population but has no strong evidence for use with people with learning disabilities).
Also, you raised an important point, André, when you mentioned potential adverse effects. Looking at the evidence in the mainstream population, behavioural activation appears to be an intervention where adverse effects are not expected. With regards to learning disabilities, certain syndromes may not lend themselves very well for such an intervention when applied inappropriately. For example, activity planning of social activities may not be beneficial to people with learning disabilities for whom social activities may be an additional stressor. That would be, however, an inappropriate use of behavioural activiation as it is not necessarily intended to plan social activities, but activities that are meaningful to the person with a learning disability, which may not involve other people.
Recommended reading:
http://who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/resource/depression_q4.pdf
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/200/5/361
I am interested in the topics raised by this article and it is very encouraging that people are benefiting. However Behavioral Activation already has a name and a large evidence base. It is called Occupational Therapy. I am unsure why this has not been raised by COT.
Hi Helen,
that’s a very interesting comment. I believe one of the reasons why the behavioural activation intervention described here is being researched as a separate intervention, not linked to occupational therapies, is because of its link to the the cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) of depression. A ‘full’ CBT treatment of depression would include cognitive and behavioural techniques, of which behavioural activation is one aspect which is also approached from a cognitive perspective. In that respect, the behavioural activation intervention offered by CBT therapists distinguish itself from similar interventions offered by occupational therapist. However, it would be good for researchers and practitioners from both backgrounds to collaborate more, especially given the multidisciplinary team approach in daily practice, and formally recognise each others’ strengths.