Background Various parent training interventions have been shown to have some effect on the symptoms of children with autism. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess effectiveness of parental training for children with autism on their symptoms and parental stress. Methods Four electronic databases, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched until March 2020 for relevant literature. Two reviewers independently screened bibliographies using an eligibility checklist and extracted data using a structured proforma. We have also carried out meta-analyses when data were available for pooling. Results Seventeen papers from 15 studies were included for data analysis. Fifteen papers showed a positive treatment effect when compared with the control group, although not always significant. Meta-analysis based on pooled data from only two studies in each respective intervention, showed small to moderate treatment effects for three interventions, DIR/Floortime, Pivotal Response and Parent focused training respectively. Conclusions As in previous systematic reviews there was a mild to moderate treatment effects of three specific types of interventions respectively. However, it was difficult to draw any definitive conclusion about the effectiveness and generalisability of any intervention because of the wide variation in the interventions, control groups, outcome measures, small sample size, small number of studies in meta-analysis, overlap between the intervention and control procedures used in the included studies. There is an urgent need for experts in various international centres to jointly standardise a parent training intervention for children with autism and carry out a large scale RCT to assess its clinical and economic effectiveness. Research Registry Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry915.

Background A high proportion of adults with intellectual disabilities are prescribed off-licence antipsychotics in the absence of a psychiatric illness. The National Health Service in England launched an initiative in 2016, ‘Stopping over-medication of people with a learning disability [intellectual disability], autism or both’ (STOMP), to address this major public health concern. Aims To gain understanding from UK psychiatrists working with adults with intellectual disabilities on the successes and challenges of withdrawing antipsychotics for challenging behaviours. Method An online questionnaire was sent to all UK psychiatrists working in the field of intellectual disability (estimated 225). Results Half of the 88 respondents stated that they started withdrawing antipsychotics over 5 years ago and 52.3% stated that they are less likely to initiate an antipsychotic since the launch of STOMP. However, since then, 46.6% are prescribing other classes of psychotropic medication instead of antipsychotics for challenging behaviours, most frequently the antidepressants. Complete antipsychotic discontinuation in over 50% of patients treated with antipsychotics was achieved by only 4.5% of respondents (n = 4); 11.4% reported deterioration in challenging behaviours in over 50% of patients on withdrawal and the same proportion (11.4%) reported no deterioration. Only 32% of respondents made the diagnosis of psychiatric illness in all their patients themselves. Family and paid carers’ concern, lack of multi-agency and multidisciplinary input and unavailability of non-medical psychosocial intervention are key reported factors hampering the withdrawal attempt. Conclusions There is an urgent need to develop national guidelines to provide a framework for systematic psychotropic drug reviews and withdrawal where possible.

People with intellectual disabilities (PwID) are at a higher risk of developing challenging behaviours (CB). Despite the poor evidence for the effectiveness of medications in managing CB, they are used widely among PwID (50–63%). The aims of our study were to develop a training programme, SPECTROM for support staff to help reduce overmedication in PwID and carry out field testing of SPECTROM including a process evaluation. We developed SPECTROM using the Experience-based co-design method that included four focus groups and a one-day co-design event. Twenty trainees received SPECTROM training. We used the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitudes Scale-Revised-Intellectual Disabilities (MAVAS-R-ID) and the Psychotropic knowledge questionnaire. A semi-structured interview and a feasibility questionnaire were used for process evaluation. SPECTROM website contains 14 modules, resources, and face-to-face training. MAVAS-R-ID scores showed change in staff attitude to ‘medication management’ domain was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Psychotropic knowledge questionnaire showed statistical post-training improvement in correct responses (p < 0.05). Process evaluation data showed that SPECTROM was acceptable, applicable, practical, and relevant to staff practice, and helped to improve self-reflection, knowledge, and support to PwID. SPECTROM is a useful training that helps to change the support staff’s attitude toward CB and improve their knowledge of psychotropic medications.

Background Although widely used, the current evidence for the efficacy of antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is limited and conflicting. Aims We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of these medications in people with ASD. Method We searched the following databases: Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, DARE and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we hand-searched 11 relevant journals. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Jadad score to assess the quality of each included study. We carried out a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Results We included 15 randomised controlled trials (13 on antidepressants and two on anti-anxiety medications) for a total of 958 people with ASD. Data showed contradictory findings among the studies, with larger studies mostly showing a non-significant difference in outcomes between the treatment and the placebo groups. Meta-analysis of pooled Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale and Clinical Global Impression Scale data from nine studies (60%) did not show any statistically significant inter-group difference on either of the outcome measures. The adverse effects reported were mild and, in most studies, their rates did not show any significant inter-group difference. Conclusions Given the methodological flaws in the most included studies and contradictory findings, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of either antidepressant or anti-anxiety medications to treat either ASD core symptoms or associated behaviours. Robust, large-scale, randomised controlled trials are needed to address this issue.

IntroductionPsychotropic medications that are primarily licenced for the treatment of psychiatric disorders are used widely (32%–85%) among people with intellectual disabilities (ID) often for the management of problem (challenging) behaviour in the absence of a psychiatric disorder. Care staff play a pivotal role in the prescribing process. Currently, no staff training programme exists to address the issue of overprescribing of psychotropic medication in people with ID, thus highlighting an urgent need for developing a psychoeducational programme (PEP) specifically designed to address this issue. We propose to develop a PEP for care staff using the methodology described in the UK Medical Research Council guide for complex interventions.Methods and analysisThe development of the PEP will involve (1) gathering information on available relevant training programmes, (2) running four focus groups with care staff and other professionals to establish the content and format of the PEP, and (3) organising a co-design event involving all relevant stakeholders to discuss the format of the PEP. A core project team will develop the PEP under guidance from the PEP Development Group which will consist of 10–12 relevant stakeholder representatives. Feedback from selected stakeholders on a draft PEP will allow us to refine the PEP before implementation. The PEP will have web-based modules supplemented by face to face training sessions. When the final draft is ready, we will field test the PEP on six to eight care staff from community care homes for people with ID. After completing the field test, we will run a focus group involving participants in the PEP to get feedback on the PEP.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for this study was waived by the UK Health Regulatory Authority as the study does not collect any patient related information and only include care staff outside the UK NHS. This will be the first ever such universally freely available PEP supported by training manual and slides.