Evaluation of a novel, multicomponent anxiety management programme for people with intellectual disability: protocol for a mixed-methods, quasi-experimental feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown some benefits to single approaches to psychological therapies for the treatment of anxiety in people with intellectual disability such as modified cognitive-behavioural therapy and mindfulness. To our knowledge, no studies have used a multicomponent approach for the individual treatment of anxiety-related disorders in this population group. A co-production group of clinical experts and people with intellectual disability has created a novel multicomponent anxiety management programme (MCAMP-ID). The aims of this study are to investigate (1) the feasibility of this approach in reducing anxiety for people with a mild/moderate intellectual disability, (2) the feasibility of outcome measures and (3) the feasibility of completing a future randomised controlled trial of this programme. The data from this feasibility study will be used to inform trial design and to complete power calculation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Sixty people with intellectual disability will be invited to participate in the study across four intellectual disability services within one mental health trust in Northwest England. The specialist services will deliver either treatment as usual (TAU) or the novel intervention (MCAMP-ID). MCAMP-ID comprises of 10 individual sessions delivered by a member of the clinical team once a week for between 10 and 12 weeks. TAU will be based on standard treatment currently delivered to meet the person's specific needs. The outcomes of the study will be feasibility of recruitment, attrition, adherence to the programme and suitability of outcome measures. A mixed-methods approach will be used to assess outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received approval from the Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (23/EM/0044) through the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS ID: 315557) in March 2023. Participants will provide informed consent before taking part. Study findings will be presented at conferences and published within a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16062949.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.077 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".