Resources search

Developing a Logic Model for the Triple-C Intervention: A Practice-Derived Intervention to Support People with Intellectual Disability and Challenging Behavior

TOURNIER, Tess
HENDRIKS, Alexander H C
JAHODA, Andrew
HASTINGS, Richard P
EMBREGTS, Petri J C M
2020

Expand view

Partly due to a lack of evidence-based methods to support people with intellectual disability (ID) and challenging behavior, their needs are often poorly met. One way to generate rapid evidence is to systematically describe and monitor interventions that are considered to be “good practice”—to develop evidence based on practical knowledge. This study describes the Dutch practice-based intervention Triple-C (Client, Coach, Competence). The intervention was developed in practice to support people with severe ID to borderline functioning and challenging behavior. The practice-based nature of Triple-C means that many of the professionals’ actions or activities are often underpinned by their implicit knowledge about the intervention they are delivering. Consequently, as the emphasis is on practice, the professionals can find it difficult to articulate how the intervention is operationalized and positive change achieved. This study aimed to assess the practical knowledge of Triple-C professionals and to develop an understanding of the mechanisms of change for Triple-C to improve understanding and to inform future research about the intervention. Through an iterative process, a logic model was developed to describe the intervention and its underlying assumptions. The development of the logic model was shaped using interviews with the founders, focus groups with support staff, psychologists, managers and members of the board of a service provider, and the analysis of published accounts of the Triple-C intervention. Data gathered from these sources were analyzed using content analysis. The logic model of the Triple-C intervention provides insight into the key elements of the approach, such as the need for unconditional supportive relationship and carrying out meaningful activities. Moreover, the potential relationship with existing evidence-based interventions such as Positive Behavioral Support and Active Support are described. Dening the underlying logic of a practice-based intervention like Triple-C is an important first step toward producing an evidence base for interventions developed from clinical practice.

Content and Quality of Motor Initiatives in the Support of People With Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities

VAN ALPHEN, Helena J M
WANINGE, Aly
MINNAERT, Alexander E M G
VAN DER PUTTEN, Annette A J
2019

Expand view

Motor activation is rarely integrated into the support of people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD), which might be the result of the limited evidence-based knowledge in this field. Practitioners have recently been developing several motor initiatives for people with PIMD, but it remains unclear about what core elements the motor initiatives actually consist of and to what level of quality it is implemented in practice. This study aims to offer an overview and analysis of the content and quality of motor initiatives actually in use for people with PIMD. Motor initiatives were explored by asking practitioners to complete an online inventory form. Documents, expert knowledge, and observations were used to collect data about the characteristics of the motor initiatives. The quality of the motor initiatives which met our eligibility criteria, was analyzed on the basis of the level of evidence for their effectiveness. The inventory yielded 118 motor initiatives of which 17 met the eligibility criteria. We identified four motor initiatives reflecting an approach to motorically activate people with PIMD within various activities, three including power-assisted exercises, three with aquatic exercises, two frameworks which integrated motor activities into their daily programs, two methods which included small-scale activities, two rhythmic movement therapies, and one program including gross motor activities. We found limited indications for descriptive evidence from 17 initiatives, limited or no indications for theoretical evidence from 12 and five initiatives respectively, and none of the initiatives provided a causal level of evidence for effectiveness. A wide variety of motor initiatives is used in current practice to activate persons with PIMD, although their effectiveness is actually unproven. Science and practice should cooperate to develop an evidence-based understanding to ensure more evidence-based support for the motor activation of people with PIMD in the future.

E-bulletin