Behavioural activation versus guided self-help for depression in adults with learning disabilities: the BeatIt RCT
Authors: Jahoda Andrew , Hastings Richard , Hatton Chris , Cooper Sally-Ann , McMeekin Nicola , Dagnan Dave , Appleton Kim , Scott Katie , Fulton Lauren , Jones Robert , McConnachie Alex , Zhang Rachel , Knight Rosie , Knowles Dawn , Williams Christopher , Briggs Andy , Melville Craig 
Published: September 2018

BackgroundDepression is the most prevalent mental health problem among people with learning disabilities.ObjectiveThe trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation for depression experienced by people with mild to moderate learning disabilities. The intervention was compared with a guided self-help intervention.DesignA multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, with follow-up at 4, 8 and 12 months post randomisation. There was a nested qualitative study.SettingParticipants were recruited from community learning disability teams and services and from Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services in Scotland, England and Wales.ParticipantsParticipants were aged ≥ 18 years, with clinically significant depression, assessed using the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychiatric Disorders for use with Adults with Learning Disabilities. Participants had to be able to give informed consent and a supporter could accompany them to therapy.InterventionsBeatIt was a manualised behavioural activation intervention, adapted for people with learning disabilities and depression. StepUp was an adapted guided self-help intervention.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD). Secondary outcomes included carer ratings of depressive symptoms and aggressiveness, self-reporting of anxiety symptoms, social support, activity and adaptive behaviour, relationships, quality of life (QoL) and life events, and resource and medication use.ResultsThere were 161 participants randomised (BeatIt,n = 84; StepUp,n = 77). Participant retention was strong, with 141 completing the trial. Most completed therapy (BeatIt: 86%; StepUp: 82%). At baseline, 63% of BeatIt participants and 66% of StepUp participants were prescribed antidepressants. There was no statistically significant difference in GDS-LD scores between the StepUp (12.94 points) and BeatIt (11.91 points) groups at the 12-month primary outcome point. However, both groups improved during the trial. Other psychological and QoL outcomes followed a similar pattern. There were no treatment group differences, but there was improvement in both groups. There was no economic evidence suggesting that BeatIt may be more cost-effective than StepUp. However, treatment costs for both groups were approximately only 4–6.5% of the total support costs. Results of the qualitative research with participants, supporters and therapists were in concert with the quantitative findings. Both treatments were perceived as active interventions and were valued in terms of their structure, content and perceived impact.LimitationsA significant limitation was the absence of a treatment-as-usual (TAU) comparison.ConclusionsPrimary and secondary outcomes, economic data and qualitative results all clearly demonstrate that there was no evidence for BeatIt being more effective than StepUp.Future workComparisons against TAU are required to determine whether or not these interventions had any effect.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN09753005.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.