Effectiveness of psychological therapies for depression or anxiety in adults with intellectual disabilities: retrospective, matched, observational cohort study of primary care electronic healthcare records in England.

IF 7.6
Céline El Baou, Rob Saunders, Joshua E J Buckman, Dave Dagnan, William Mandy, Elizabeth O'Nions, Katrina Scior, Richard Pender, Sarah Hoare, Marcus Richards, Henry Clements, Stephen Pilling, Amber John, Joshua Stott
{"title":"Effectiveness of psychological therapies for depression or anxiety in adults with intellectual disabilities: retrospective, matched, observational cohort study of primary care electronic healthcare records in England.","authors":"Céline El Baou, Rob Saunders, Joshua E J Buckman, Dave Dagnan, William Mandy, Elizabeth O'Nions, Katrina Scior, Richard Pender, Sarah Hoare, Marcus Richards, Henry Clements, Stephen Pilling, Amber John, Joshua Stott","doi":"10.1192/bjp.2025.127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment guidelines recommend evidence-based psychological therapies for adults with intellectual disabilities with co-occurring anxiety or depression. No previous research has explored the effectiveness of these therapies in mainstream psychological therapy settings or outside specialist settings.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies delivered in routine primary care settings for people with intellectual disability who are experiencing co-occurring depression or anxiety.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study used linked electronic healthcare records of 2 048 542 adults who received a course of NHS Talking Therapies for anxiety and depression in England between 2012 and 2019 to build a retrospective, observational cohort of individuals with intellectual disability, matched 1:2 with individuals without intellectual disability. Logistic regressions were used to compare metrics of symptom improvement and deterioration used in the national programme, on the basis of depression and anxiety measures collected before and at the last attended therapy session.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 6870 adults with intellectual disability and 2 041 672 adults without intellectual disability. In unadjusted analyses, symptoms improved on average for people with intellectual disability after a course of therapy, but these individuals experienced poorer outcomes compared with those without intellectual disability (reliable improvement 60.2% for people with intellectual disability <i>v</i>. 69.2% for people without intellectual disability, odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.63-0.70; reliable deterioration 10.3% for people with intellectual disability <i>v</i>. 5.7% for those without intellectual disability, odds ratio 1.89, 95% CI 1.75-2.04). After propensity score matching, some differences were attenuated (reliable improvement, adjusted odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI 1.91-1.04), but some outcomes remained poorer for people with intellectual disability (reliable deterioration, adjusted odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 1.16-1.42).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence-based psychological therapies may be effective for adults with intellectual disability, but their outcomes may be similar to (for improvement and recovery) or poorer than (for deterioration) those for adults without intellectual disability. Future work should investigate the impact of adaptations of therapies for those with intellectual disability to make such interventions more effective and accessible for this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":520791,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2025.127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Treatment guidelines recommend evidence-based psychological therapies for adults with intellectual disabilities with co-occurring anxiety or depression. No previous research has explored the effectiveness of these therapies in mainstream psychological therapy settings or outside specialist settings.

Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies delivered in routine primary care settings for people with intellectual disability who are experiencing co-occurring depression or anxiety.

Method: This study used linked electronic healthcare records of 2 048 542 adults who received a course of NHS Talking Therapies for anxiety and depression in England between 2012 and 2019 to build a retrospective, observational cohort of individuals with intellectual disability, matched 1:2 with individuals without intellectual disability. Logistic regressions were used to compare metrics of symptom improvement and deterioration used in the national programme, on the basis of depression and anxiety measures collected before and at the last attended therapy session.

Results: The study included 6870 adults with intellectual disability and 2 041 672 adults without intellectual disability. In unadjusted analyses, symptoms improved on average for people with intellectual disability after a course of therapy, but these individuals experienced poorer outcomes compared with those without intellectual disability (reliable improvement 60.2% for people with intellectual disability v. 69.2% for people without intellectual disability, odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.63-0.70; reliable deterioration 10.3% for people with intellectual disability v. 5.7% for those without intellectual disability, odds ratio 1.89, 95% CI 1.75-2.04). After propensity score matching, some differences were attenuated (reliable improvement, adjusted odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI 1.91-1.04), but some outcomes remained poorer for people with intellectual disability (reliable deterioration, adjusted odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 1.16-1.42).

Conclusions: Evidence-based psychological therapies may be effective for adults with intellectual disability, but their outcomes may be similar to (for improvement and recovery) or poorer than (for deterioration) those for adults without intellectual disability. Future work should investigate the impact of adaptations of therapies for those with intellectual disability to make such interventions more effective and accessible for this population.

心理治疗对智力残疾成人抑郁或焦虑的有效性:英国初级保健电子医疗记录的回顾性、匹配、观察队列研究
背景:治疗指南推荐对伴有焦虑或抑郁的智力残疾成人进行循证心理治疗。以前没有研究探索这些疗法在主流心理治疗环境或专家环境之外的有效性。目的:评估心理治疗在常规初级保健机构中对并发抑郁或焦虑的智力残疾患者的有效性。方法:本研究使用了2012年至2019年期间在英国接受NHS谈话疗法治疗焦虑和抑郁的2048542名成年人的相关电子医疗记录,建立了一个智力残疾个体的回顾性观察队列,与非智力残疾个体的比例为1:2。在最后一次参加治疗之前和最后一次参加治疗时收集的抑郁和焦虑测量数据的基础上,采用Logistic回归来比较国家方案中使用的症状改善和恶化指标。结果:共纳入6870名智力残疾成人和2041672名非智力残疾成人。在未经调整的分析中,经过一个疗程的治疗后,智力残疾者的症状平均有所改善,但与无智力残疾者相比,这些个体的结果较差(智力残疾者的可靠改善为60.2%,无智力残疾者为69.2%,优势比0.66,95% CI 0.63-0.70;智力残疾者的可靠恶化为10.3%,无智力残疾者为5.7%,优势比1.89,95% CI 1.75-2.04)。倾向评分匹配后,一些差异减弱(可靠改善,校正优势比0.97,95% CI 1.91-1.04),但智力残疾者的一些结果仍然较差(可靠恶化,校正优势比1.28,95% CI 1.16-1.42)。结论:基于证据的心理疗法对智力残疾的成年人可能有效,但其结果可能与无智力残疾的成年人相似(改善和恢复)或更差(恶化)。未来的工作应该调查适应治疗对智力残疾患者的影响,使这些干预措施对这一人群更有效和更容易获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信