Implementation of Bright Light Therapy ID
- Conditions
- Depressive Symptoms
- Interventions
- Other: Bright light therapy
- Registration Number
- NCT06215235
- Lead Sponsor
- Erasmus Medical Center
- Brief Summary
Many adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) have depressive symptoms, which negatively impact their quality of life. A lot of of the non-medicinal forms of treatment are not or hardly suitable for people with ID. Bright light therapy (BLT) seems to be a good option. Earlier research has shown that BLT is applicable in this group and seems promising in terms of reducing depressive symptoms, without serious side effects.
In part 1 of this project we investigate the implementation of BLT at Amarant. We will take the lessons learned into part 2 of this project: the implementation of BLT at Abrona. We will evaluate this process and the outcomes.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- RECRUITING
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 105
- Involved in the implementation of BLT (staff) OR
- Involved in the prescription or application of BLT (staff/relatives) OR
- receiving BLT for their depressive symptoms (patients with ID)
- 18 years or older
- informed consent
- n/a
Study & Design
- Study Type
- OBSERVATIONAL
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Persons involved in BLT Bright light therapy Persons with ID and staff who are involved in BLT. Either by receiving BLT, or by prescribing or facitating BLT.
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Determinants three times during study, 3-4 months in between Barriers and facilitators to BLT, measured by interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR, Damschroder et al., 2009)
acceptability three times during study, 3-4 months in between Acceptability (Proctor et al., 2011) is the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. This will be measured by interviews.
appropriateness three times during study, 3-4 months in between Appropriateness (Proctor et al., 2011) is the perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the innovation or evidence based practice for a given practice setting, provider, or consumer; and/or perceived fit of the innovation to address a particular issue or problem. This will be measured by interviews.
feasibility of the intervention three times during study, 3-4 months in between Feasibility (Proctor et al., 2011) is defined as the extent to which a new treatment, or an innovation, can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting. This will be measured by interviews.
fidelity three times during study, 3-4 months in between Fidelity (Proctor et al., 2011) is defined as the degree to which an intervention was implemented as it was prescribed in the original protocol or as it was intended by the program developers. This will be measured by interviews and by case report study.
strategies three times during study, 3-4 months in between Implementation strategies are methods to enhance the adoption, implementation and sustainability of a policy or intervention. This will be studied with interview data and logs.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Depressive symptoms 1 year Depressive symptoms measured by the Anxiety, Depression, and Mood Scale (ADAMS, Hermans et al., 2008). It contains 28 items, each can be scored 0 to 3. Minimum score 0 and maximum score 84 and higher scores mean worse outcome.
Behaviour 1 year Behaviour that could be linked to depressive symptoms measured by the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (ABC, Aman et al., 1985). It contains 58 items, each can be scored 0 to 3. Minimum score 0 and maximum score 174. Higher score means worse outcome.
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
ErasmusMC
🇳🇱Rotterdam, Netherlands