BACKGROUND: Behavioural disturbance, such as agitation, is a common feature of dementia, and causes significant problems and distress for carers. Snoezelen is increasingly used with people who have dementia, but there is limited evidence of its efficacy. OBJECTIVE: This crossover randomised controlled study aimed to evaluate the effect of Snoezelen on the mood and behaviour of patients with dementia, in comparison to the effect of an established and accepted intervention, reminiscence therapy. METHODS:Twenty patients with dementia and significant agitated behaviour, received three sessions each of Snoezelen and reminiscence. The effects were assessed using measures of observed agitated behaviour and heart rate over the course of the sessions, and mood and behaviour during the sessions. RESULTS: Both interventions had a positive effect. Snoezelen was no more beneficial than reminiscence in terms of effecting a significant reduction in agitated behaviour or heart rate. There was considerable variation in the way individuals responded to each intervention. Snoezelen may have a more positive effect than reminiscence, but due to the observed differences between the interventions being small, and the small number of subjects, this advantage was not demonstrated statistically. CONCLUSIONS: Further research, with larger numbers of subjects, and an appropriate control is required to establish the benefits of Snoezelen for people at different stages of dementia, and to identify any benefits additional to those derived from increased staff attention. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Behavioural disturbance, such as agitation, is a common feature of dementia, and causes significant problems and distress for carers. Snoezelen is increasingly used with people who have dementia, but there is limited evidence of its efficacy. OBJECTIVE: This crossover randomised controlled study aimed to evaluate the effect of Snoezelen on the mood and behaviour of patients with dementia, in comparison to the effect of an established and accepted intervention, reminiscence therapy. METHODS: Twenty patients with dementia and significant agitated behaviour, received three sessions each of Snoezelen and reminiscence. The effects were assessed using measures of observed agitated behaviour and heart rate over the course of the sessions, and mood and behaviour during the sessions. RESULTS: Both interventions had a positive effect. Snoezelen was no more beneficial than reminiscence in terms of effecting a significant reduction in agitated behaviour or heart rate. There was considerable variation in the way individuals responded to each intervention. Snoezelen may have a more positive effect than reminiscence, but due to the observed differences between the interventions being small, and the small number of subjects, this advantage was not demonstrated statistically. CONCLUSIONS: Further research, with larger numbers of subjects, and an appropriate control is required to establish the benefits of Snoezelen for people at different stages of dementia, and to identify any benefits additional to those derived from increased staff attention. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.