Effectiveness of Caregiver Training in Mindfulness-Based Positive Behavior Support (MBPBS) vs. Training-as-Usual (TAU): A Randomized Controlled Trial
Open accessAbstract
Caregivers of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) often end up having their medical and psychological well-being compromised due to the stressful nature of caregiving, especially when those in their care engage in aggressive behavior. In this study, we provided caregivers with mindfulness-based training to enable them to better manage their psychological well-being and, through this, to also enhance specific indices of quality of life of the individuals in their care. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) the comparative effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Positive Behavior Support (MBPBS) and Training-as-Usual (TAU) for caregivers in a congregate care facility for individuals with severe and profound IDD. The comparative effects of the two training conditions were assessed in terms of caregiver variables care recipient variable (number of aggressive events), and agency variables Results showed that MBPBS was significantly more effective than TAU in enabling the caregivers to manage their perceived psychological stress, and to reduce the use of physical restraints and stat medications for aggressive behavior of the individuals in their care. In addition, there were significant reductions in aggressive events by the individuals in their care, 1:1 staffing of individuals with aggressive behavior, and staff turnover. Furthermore, the MBPBS training was significantly more cost-effective than the TAU training. If replicated in future RCT studies, MBPBS may provide an effective means of enhancing socially acceptable bidirectional engagement of caregivers and care recipients within a person-centered context.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 61
- Authors
- Singh, N. N., Lancioni, G. E., Karazsia, B. T., Chan, J., & Winton, A. S. W.
- Affiliations
- Augusta University (US)
- University of Bari Aldo Moro (IT)
- College of Wooster (US)
- Massey University (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Singh, Nirbhay N.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2016-10-06
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 1549-1549
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5053082
- OpenAlex
- W2528167805
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 5.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- caregiver education, intellectual and developmental disabilities, aggression, caregiver stress, physical restraint, psychotropic drug use, employee turnover, cost-effectiveness, person-centred care, severe and profound disabilities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review