BSL-IAPT: Population, effectiveness and clinical cut offs
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Evaluating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of BSL (British Sign Language) IAPT (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies): Population, effectiveness and clinical cut offs
IRAS ID
167179
Contact name
Alys Young
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Manchester
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 3 months, 27 days
Research summary
IAPT (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies) is a national (England) NHS programme providing NICE approved psychological interventions to manage mental health problems (principally depression and anxiety) in primary care. BSL-IAPT is an adapted version to meet the cultural and linguistic needs of Deaf people who use British Sign Language (BSL). It is delivered by sign language users (mostly Deaf) and uses IAPT standard assessment and outcome measures (PHQ-9, GAD-7 and WSAS), translated into BSL; the reliability of the translated measures was established by our previous work. This application forms part of our feasibility work leading potentially to a large scale trial of the effectiveness/cost effectiveness of BSL-IAPT for Deaf people when compared to Deaf people's access to standard IAPT with reasonable adjustments (e.g an interpreter). In this study we plan to use secondary data analysis from BSL-IAPT patients' anonymised data to achieve four aims: 1) to determine the likely numbers of users of BSL-IAPT and Deaf users of Standard IAPT who would be eligible for recruitment to a larger study; 2) to compare the previous outcomes of Deaf people using BSL-IAPT to estimate the target for recruitment in a full trial; 3) to explore the population characteristics of BSL-IAPT service users, their referral routes and their clinical progress; 4) to establish the clinical cut-offs for the IAPT BSL assessments PHQ-9 BSL, GAD-7 BSL and WSAS BSL (the point on the scale that identifies whether someone has anxiety and/or depression): this may be different for Deaf people in comparison with hearing people.
REC name
London - Camberwell St Giles Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
14/LO/2234
Date of REC Opinion
5 Dec 2014
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion