↓ Skip to main content

Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy-Generalised (PACT-G) against treatment as usual for reducing symptom severity in young children with autism spectrum disorder: study protocol for a randomised…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy-Generalised (PACT-G) against treatment as usual for reducing symptom severity in young children with autism spectrum disorder: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2881-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Green, Catherine Aldred, Tony Charman, Ann Le Couteur, Richard A. Emsley, Victoria Grahame, Patricia Howlin, Neil Humphrey, Kathy Leadbitter, Helen McConachie, Jeremy R. Parr, Andrew Pickles, Vicky Slonims, Carol Taylor

Abstract

Prior evidence shows that behaviours closely related to the intervention delivered for autism are amenable to change, but it is more difficult to generalise treatment effects beyond the intervention context. We test an early autism intervention designed to promote generalisation of therapy-acquired skills into home and school contexts to improve adaptive function and reduce symptoms. A detailed mechanism study will address the process of such generalisation. Objective 1 will be to test if the PACT-G intervention improves autism symptom outcome in the home and school context of the intervention as well as in the primary outcome research setting. Objective 2 will use the mechanism analysis to test for evidence of acquired skills from intervention generalizing across contexts and producing additive effects on primary outcome. This is a three-site, two-parallel-group, randomised controlled trial of the experimental treatment plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU alone. Children aged 2-11 years (n = 244 (122 intervention/122 TAU; ~ 82/site) meeting criteria for core autism will be eligible. The experimental intervention builds on a clinic-based Pre-school Autism Communication Treatment model (PACT), delivered with the primary caregiver, combined with additional theory- and evidence-based strategies designed to enhance the generalisation of effects into naturalistic home and education contexts. The control intervention will be TAU. autism symptom outcome, researcher-assessed using a standardised protocol. autism symptoms, child interaction with parent or teacher, language and reported functional outcomes in home and school settings. Outcomes measured at baseline and 12-month endpoint in all settings with interim interaction measurements (7 months) to test treatment effect mechanisms. Primary analysis will estimate between-group difference in primary outcome using analysis of covariance with test of homogeneity of effect across age group. Mechanism analysis will use regression models to test for mediation on primary outcome by parent-child and teaching staff-child social interaction. This is an efficacy and mechanism trial of generalising evidence-based autism treatment into home and school settings. It will provide data on whether extending treatment across naturalistic contexts enhances overall effect and data on the mechanism in autism development of the generalisation of acquired developmental skills across contexts. ISRCTN, ID: 25378536 . Prospectively registered on 9 March 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 203 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Student > Master 18 9%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 84 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 9%
Social Sciences 15 7%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 95 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,940,026
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#215
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,156
of 354,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,535 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.