The configuration, funding and costs of providing services for children with behaviours that challenge.

<ns3:p>Background Children with intellectual disabilities and behaviours that challenge (BtC) and their families require complex, multi-agency support. Despite policy commitments to strengthen community-based provision, including those arising from Transforming Care and the forthcoming Mental Health Bill (2025), there remains limited evidence on how these services are configured or what they cost to deliver. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 2018) identified major evidence gaps in optimal service design, integration, and cost-effectiveness. Objective This research explores the structure and associated costs of community-based services in England that support children with intellectual disabilities and BtC. It aims to describe the configuration of local “service models”, identify cost drivers, and clarify data requirements for commissioning and evaluation. Methods Within the NIHR-funded MELD (Mapping and Evaluating Services for Children with Learning Disabilities and Behaviours that Challenge) programme, 278 services were identified across England. Using survey data (n=161), Latent Class Analysis and descriptive synthesis produced a typology of five community service models. Nineteen representative sites participated in a detailed costing study using a bespoke data collection instrument aligned with national unit-cost frameworks. Quantitative and narrative data on staffing, pathways, and overheads were analysed descriptively and thematically, with input from a Parent Advisory Group. Results Five distinct service models were identified: generic CAMHS, ID-CAMHS, Children and Young People’s Disability, Specialist BtC Support, and All-Age services. Costs were primarily driven by staffing mix, intensity of BtC support, and organisational structure. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in funding flows, eligibility, and waiting times. Conclusions This study provides the first national overview of community service configurations for children with intellectual disabilities and BtC. The findings highlight significant variation in organisation and cost, informing future economic evaluation and service-model optimisation in line with ongoing policy reform.</ns3:p>

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
NIHR Open Research
Published
2026-02-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14153.1
Primary Topic
Family and Disability Support Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The configuration, funding and costs of providing services for children with behaviours that challenge.

Peter E. Langdon, Richard P. Hastings, Nick Gore, Ashley Liew et al.
NIHR Open Research
Family and Disability Support Research
article

The configuration, funding and costs of providing services for children with behaviours that challenge.

Peter E. Langdon, Richard P. Hastings, Nick Gore, Ashley Liew, Caroline Richards, Jill Bradshaw, Nicholas Manktelow, Stavros Petrou, Paul Thompson, Mark Lovel, Elizabeth-Ann Schroeder
article en

Abstract

<ns3:p>Background Children with intellectual disabilities and behaviours that challenge (BtC) and their families require complex, multi-agency support. Despite policy commitments to strengthen community-based provision, including those arising from Transforming Care and the forthcoming Mental Health Bill (2025), there remains limited evidence on how these services are configured or what they cost to deliver. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 2018) identified major evidence gaps in optimal service design, integration, and cost-effectiveness. Objective This research explores the structure and associated costs of community-based services in England that support children with intellectual disabilities and BtC. It aims to describe the configuration of local “service models”, identify cost drivers, and clarify data requirements for commissioning and evaluation. Methods Within the NIHR-funded MELD (Mapping and Evaluating Services for Children with Learning Disabilities and Behaviours that Challenge) programme, 278 services were identified across England. Using survey data (n=161), Latent Class Analysis and descriptive synthesis produced a typology of five community service models. Nineteen representative sites participated in a detailed costing study using a bespoke data collection instrument aligned with national unit-cost frameworks. Quantitative and narrative data on staffing, pathways, and overheads were analysed descriptively and thematically, with input from a Parent Advisory Group. Results Five distinct service models were identified: generic CAMHS, ID-CAMHS, Children and Young People’s Disability, Specialist BtC Support, and All-Age services. Costs were primarily driven by staffing mix, intensity of BtC support, and organisational structure. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in funding flows, eligibility, and waiting times. Conclusions This study provides the first national overview of community service configurations for children with intellectual disabilities and BtC. The findings highlight significant variation in organisation and cost, informing future economic evaluation and service-model optimisation in line with ongoing policy reform.</ns3:p>

NIHR Open ResearchVol. 6
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University of Kent (GB), University of Oxford (GB), Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University of Birmingham (GB)
National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care, Health and Social Care Delivery Research
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Family and Disability Support Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.