Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Protocol

Understanding the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of lifestyle modification interventions in adults with learning disabilities: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

Authors: Dikshyanta Rana, Sophie Westrop, Evi Germeni, Arlene McGarty, Louisa Ells, Phillippa Lally, Michael McEwan, Craig Melville, Leanne Harris, Olivia Wu

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Adults with learning disabilities have an increased disposition to unhealthy lifestyle behaviours which often occur simultaneously. Existing studies focus on complex interventions targeting unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, smoking, and alcohol use to reduce health risks experienced. It is essential to understand how well these interventions work, what works, for whom, in what context and why. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of lifestyle modification interventions for adults with learning disabilities.

Methods

This is a mixed-methods systematic review consisting of a network meta-analysis (NMA) and realist synthesis. Electronic databases (ASSIA, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO) will be searched from inception to 14 January 2021 with no language restriction. Additionally, trial registries, grey literature databases and references lists will be searched. Studies related to lifestyle modification interventions on the adult population (>18 years) with learning disabilities will be eligible for inclusion. Two independent researchers will screen studies, extract data and assess its quality and risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (RoB Version 2) and ROBINS-I. The strength of the body of evidence will be assessed based on the GRADE approach. The NMA will incorporate results from RCTs and quasi-experimental studies to estimate the effectiveness of various lifestyle interventions. Where appropriate, a component NMA (CNMA) will be used to estimate effectiveness. The realist synthesis will complement and explain the findings of NMA and CNMA by including additional qualitative and mixed-methods studies. Studies will be included based on their relevance to the programme theory and the rigour of their methods, as determined by quality appraisal tools appropriate to the study design. Results from both syntheses will be incorporated into a logic model.

Discussion

The paucity of population-specific lifestyle interventions contributes to the challenges of behaviour change in adults with learning disabilities. This study will provide an evidence-base from which various stakeholders can develop effective interventions for adults with learning disabilities. The evidence will also help prioritise and inform research recommendations for future primary research so that people with learning disabilities live happier, healthier and longer lives.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD 42020223290

Available only for authorised users

Melville CA, Hamilton S, Hankey CR, Miller S, Boyle S. The prevalence and determinants of obesity in adults with intellectual disabilities. Obes Rev. 2007;8(3):223–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00296.x.CrossRefPubMed

Banks S. Chronic illness and people with intellectual diability: prevalence, prevention and management; 2016.

Robertson J, Emerson E, Baines S, Hatton C. Obesity and health behaviours of British adults with self-reported intellectual impairments: cross sectional survey. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):219. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-219.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hale DR, Fitzgerald-Yau N, Viner RM. A systematic review of effective interventions for reducing multiple health risk behaviors in adolescence. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(5):e19–41. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301874.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schuit AJ, van Loon AJM, Tijhuis M, Ocké MC. Clustering of lifestyle risk factors in a general adult population. Prev Med. 2002;35(3):219–24. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2002.1064.CrossRefPubMed

Hatton C, Emerson E. Introduction: health disparities, health inequity, and people with intellectual disabilities. International review of research in developmental disabilities. 48: Elsevier; 2015. p. 1–9.

Krahn GL, Fox MH. Health disparities of adults with intellectual disabilities: what do we know? What do we do? J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2014;27(5):431–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12067.CrossRefPubMed

Myint PK, Luben RN, Wareham NJ, Bingham SA, Khaw K-T. Combined effect of health behaviours and risk of first ever stroke in 20 040 men and women over 11 years’ follow-up in Norfolk cohort of European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC Norfolk): prospective population study. BMJ. 2009;338(feb19 2):b349. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b349.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Harris L, McGarty AM, Hilgenkamp T, Mitchell F, Melville CA. Correlates of objectively measured sedentary time in adults with intellectual disabilities. Prev Med Rep. 2018;9:12–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.11.010.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Melville CA, Oppewal A, Elinder LS, Freiberger E, Guerra-Balic M, Hilgenkamp TI, et al. Definitions, measurement and prevalence of sedentary behaviour in adults with intellectual disabilities—a systematic review. Prev Med. 2017;97:62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.12.052.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Dairo YM, Collett J, Dawes H, Oskrochi GR. Physical activity levels in adults with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. Prev Med Rep. 2016;4:209–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.06.008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Hsieh K, Rimmer JH, Heller T. Obesity and associated factors in adults with intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2014;58(9):851–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12100.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Emerson E, Turnbull L. Self-reported smoking and alcohol use among adolescents with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil. 2005;9(1):58–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629505049730.CrossRefPubMed

14.

McGillicuddy NB. A review of substance use research among those with mental retardation. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2006;12(1):41–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20092.CrossRefPubMed

15.

WHO. Noncommunicable diseases fact sheet 2020 [Available from: Retrieved from World Health Organisation, [Available from: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases].

16.

Taggart L, Huxley A, Baker G. Alcohol and illicit drug misuse in people with learning disabilities: implications for research and service development. Adv Ment Health Learn Disabil. 2008;2(1):11–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/17530180200800003.CrossRef

17.

Harris L, Melville C, Murray H, Hankey C. The effects of multi-component weight management interventions on weight loss in adults with intellectual disabilities and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Res Dev Disabil. 2018;72:42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.10.021.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Network SIG. Management of obesity: a national clinical guideline. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; 2010.

19.

NICE. Obesity: identification, assessment and management. CG189.: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.; 2014 [Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg189/resources/obesity-identification-assessment-and-management-pdf-35109821097925].

20.

Harris L, Hankey C, Jones N, Pert C, Murray H, Tobin J, et al. A cluster randomised control trial of a multi-component weight management programme for adults with intellectual disabilities and obesity. Br J Nutr. 2017;118(3):229–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114517001933.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Ptomey LT, Saunders RR, Saunders M, Washburn RA, Mayo MS, Sullivan DK, et al. Weight management in adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a randomized controlled trial of two dietary approaches. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31:82–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12348.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kerr S, Lawrence M, Darbyshire C, Middleton A, Fitzsimmons L. Tobacco and alcohol-related interventions for people with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities: a systematic review of the literature. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2013;57(5):393–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01543.x.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Spanos D, Melville CA, Hankey CR. Weight management interventions in adults with intellectual disabilities and obesity: a systematic review of the evidence. Nutr J. 2013;12(1):132. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-12-132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Temple VA, Frey GC, Stanish HI. Interventions to promote physical activity for adults with intellectual disabilities. Salud Pública Méx. 2017;59(4):446–53. https://doi.org/10.21149/8218.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Willems M, Waninge A, Hilgenkamp TI, van Empelen P, Krijnen WP, van der Schans CP, et al. Effects of lifestyle change interventions for people with intellectual disabilities: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(6):949–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12463.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349(jan02 1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647.

27.

Higgins J. GS. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0.: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2013. Available: www cochrane-handbook org. 2016.

28.

Michie S, Prestwich A. Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychol. 2010;29(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016939.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013;46(1):81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Higgins JP, Sterne JA, Savovic J, Page MJ, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10(Suppl 1):29–31.

31.

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919.

32.

GRADE working group. Grading quality of evidence and strength ofrecommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.CrossRefPubMedCentral

33.

Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14(4):429–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Freeman SC, Scott NW, Powell R, Johnston M, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ. Component network meta-analysis identifies the most effective components of psychological preparation for adults undergoing surgery under general anesthesia. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;98:105–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.012.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Welton NJ, Caldwell D, Adamopoulos E, Vedhara K. Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of complex interventions: psychological interventions in coronary heart disease. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169(9):1158–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp014.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van Der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc B (statistical methodology). 2002;64(4):583–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00353.CrossRef

38.

Lu G, Ades A. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101(474):447–59. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214505000001302.CrossRef

39.

Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):80–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1037.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):1-8, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-159.

41.

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist synthesis: an introduction. Manchester: ESRC Research Methods Programme, University of Manchester; 2004.

42.

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Carrieri D, Briscoe S, Jackson M, Mattick K, Papoutsi C, Pearson M, et al. ‘Care Under Pressure’: a realist review of interventions to tackle doctors’ mental ill-health and its impacts on the clinical workforce and patient care. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e021273. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021273.

44.

Papoutsi C, Mattick K, Pearson M, Brennan N, Briscoe S, Wong G. Social and professional influences on antimicrobial prescribing for doctors-in-training: a realist review. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72(9):2418–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx194.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Programme CAS. CASP qualitative checklist. [online]; 2018.

46.

Kmet LM, Cook LS, Lee RC. Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields; 2004.

47.

Joffe M, Mindell J. Complex causal process diagrams for analyzing the health impacts of policy interventions. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(3):473–9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.063693.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Armstrong R, Ueffing E, Baker P, et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(1):33–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.32.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000893.

50.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

Title: Understanding the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of lifestyle modification interventions in adults with learning disabilities: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review
Authors: Dikshyanta Rana
Sophie Westrop
Evi Germeni
Arlene McGarty
Louisa Ells
Phillippa Lally
Michael McEwan
Craig Melville
Leanne Harris
Olivia Wu
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01808-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Understanding the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of lifestyle modification interventions in adults with learning disabilities: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Reporting quality evaluation of the stroke clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review

Team functioning and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review protocol

Dzherelo (Immunoxel) as adjunctive therapy to standard antituberculosis treatment in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Keyword parsimony—lessons from a scoping review

Appraisal of the diagnostic procedures of acute pancreatitis in the guidelines

Access to systemic anti-cancer therapies for women with secondary breast cancer—protocol for a mixed methods systematic review