Improving IAPT For People with Learning Disabilities
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Improving IAPT for People with Learning Disabilities from Service Users' and Clinicians' Perspectives: An Action Research Approach
IRAS ID
167093
Contact name
Kate A Bexley
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
City University, London
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 8 months, 19 days
Research summary
The Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) initiative intended to reverse in the inequalities that existed amongst those accessing psychological therapies (DoH/CSIP; 2007]. The DoH commissioned the National Development Team for Inclusion (NDTi) to report on reasonable adjustments in mental health services for people with learning disabilities and autism. The resulting report ‘Reasonably Adjusted?’ (NDTi, 2012) highlighted few mental health services comprehensively and systematically audited their practice and redesigned accordingly. The NDTi updated the Greenlight Toolkit (GLTK, 2013), an audit tool which aims to support mental health services measure how successful they are in making adjustments to accommodate the needs of people with learning disabilities (PwLD) and autism. An 'easy-read' accessible version was made so that PwLD could be included in the audit process. At present, little seems to have been done to include the views of PwLD and the mental health clinicians who work with them. This will be a qualitative study research study guided by an action research approach. Participants will be 4-8 services users with learning disabilities who have received support in IAPT and 4-8 IAPT clinicians. There will be three key phases of the study. The first will involve interviewing participants using the GLTK to obtain their views on how an IAPT service currently fares in relation to the GLTK, and their views on possible changes to improve this. The second will involve a six month implementation period where participants suggested changes will be implemented within an IAPT service. The third will evaluate the effectiveness of these changes by interviewing service users with learning disabilities and IAPT clinicians. Data will be analysed using thematic analysis after the interviews in the first and third phases. It is hoped that this method could be subsequently be used in other IAPT services to ensure reasonable adjustments are being made.
REC name
North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 2
REC reference
15/NS/0009
Date of REC Opinion
18 Feb 2015
REC opinion
Unfavourable Opinion