Sensory approaches in psychiatric units: Patterns and influences of use in one Australian health region.
Lisa Wright, Pamela Meredith, Sally Bennett
PMID 35706333WHAT IT FOUND
Most clinicians used sensory approaches with only a small share of patients.
Training and occupational therapy roles were the strongest links to frequent use. Seclusion reduction was rarely a stated goal.
Key findings
01Of 163 participants who answered, 89% used sensory interventions with some consumers, but over half of those used them with 25% or fewer of their caseload.
02Amount of training was the factor most strongly associated with frequent use across all sensory approaches; occupational therapists used weighted modalities and sensory assessments more often than other disciplines.
03The most common purpose for using sensory approaches was reducing anxiety and agitation, while most participants infrequently used them to reduce seclusion and restraint.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only clinicians from one health region in Queensland, so results may not apply to other services. Participation was voluntary and not randomised, meaning staff already interested in sensory approaches may have been overrepresented. Data relied on self-report, which may overestimate or underestimate actual frequency of use compared to objective measures. The survey did not ask how consumer preference or choice influenced the decision to use specific sensory approaches.
Declared interests
One author was employed by the mental health service studied and facilitated sensory modulation training within that service. The study was funded by the Prince Charles Hospital Foundation.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the association between occupational therapy discipline and higher use as evidence that OTs are more effective at delivering these interventions. The study measured self-reported frequency of use, not patient outcomes or clinical efficacy.