Snoezelen for dementia

J C Chung, C K Lai, P M Chung, H P French, J C Chung, C K Lai, P M Chung, H P French

Abstract

Background: Snoezelen, multi-sensory stimulation, provides sensory stimuli to stimulate the primary senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell, through the use of lighting effects, tactile surfaces, meditative music and the odour of relaxing essential oils (Pinkney 1997). The clinical application of snoezelen has been extended from the field of learning disability to dementia care over the past decade. The rationale for its use lies in providing a sensory environment that places fewer demands on intellectual abilities but capitalizes on the residual sensorimotor abilities of people with dementia (e.g. Buettner 1999, Hope 1998). Practitioners are keen to use snoezelen in dementia care, and some encouraging results have been documented in the area of promoting adaptive behaviours (e.g. Baker, Long 1992, Spaull 1998). However, the clinical application of snoezelen often varies in form, nature, principles and procedures. Such variations not only make examination of the therapeutic values of Snoezelen difficult, but also impede the clinical development of snoezelen in dementia care. A systematic review of evidence for the efficacy of snoezelen in the care of people with dementia is therefore needed to inform future clinical applications and research directions.

Objectives: This review aims to examine the clinical efficacy of snoezelen for older people with dementia.

Search strategy: "Snoezelen", "multi-sensory", "dement*", "Alzheimer*", "randomized control/single control/double control" were used as keywords to search seven electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, PsyLIT). The list of trials was compared with those identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group.

Selection criteria: All RCTs in which Snoezelen or multi-sensory programmes were used as an intervention for people with dementia were included in the review. Trial data included in the review were restricted to those involving people aged over 60 years suffering from any type of dementia, except one subject of Baker's study was aged below 60 years.

Data collection and analysis: Only two RCTs fulfill the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Two reviewers independently extracted the data from these two inclusion studies. Quantitative synthesis of the comparable data from the two trials was performed.

Main results: Two trials were included. Both Baker (and Kragt examined the short-term values of snoezelen on the behaviours of people with dementia. Although the pooled results were insignificant, the trend was in the direction of favouring treatment (hence a negative value of the SMD). The standardized mean difference (SMD) was -1.22, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (-4.08, 1.64). Kragt's result, weighted 47%, was significant in favour of treatment, with a SMD of -2.77 and a 95% CI (-4.24, -1.29). During the snoezelen session, Kragt's subjects presented significantly fewer apathetic behaviours (t=-8.22, p<0.01), fewer restless behaviours (t=-3.00, p=0.01), fewer repetitive behaviours (t=-.822, p<0.01), and fewer disturbances (t=-4.91, p<0.01). Baker's result was slightly not in favour of the treatment, with a SMD of 0.16 and a 95% CI (-0.41, 0.73). The control subjects touched objects/equipment more appropriately within the activity sessions than the subjects who participated in snoezelen sessions (F(1,47)=5.96, p=.001). Kragt did not examine the carryover and long-term effects of snoezelen, so only Baker's results were analysed. Baker used the Behavioural and Mood Disturbance scale (BMD), the REHAB, the CAPE and MMSE to assess patients mood, behaviour and cognition after (but not immediately after) four treatment sessions and eight treatment sessions. Some assessments were carried at home, some at day hospital. There were many subscores and mostly there were no differences between treatment and control. The following significant differences were found with benefit in favour of snoezelen compared with control after four sessions: apathy ezelen compared with control after four sessions: apathy score of the BRS (CAPE) (MD -3.00, 95%CIs -5.87 to -0.13, P=0.04), after eight sessions: mood score of the BRS (CAPE) (MD -2.60, 95%CIs -4.92 to -0.28, P=0.03), total score of the BRS (CAPE) (MD -6.92, 95%CIs -13.13 to -0.7, P=0.03), speech skills of the REHAB (MD 1.46, 95%CIs 0.01 to 2.82, P=0.03), psychomotor subscore of the cognitive assessment scale of CAPE (MD -3.12, 95%CIs -5.31 to -0.93, P<0.01).

Reviewer's conclusions: Two trials were reviewed. Although both studies examined the short-term values of snoezelen on people with dementia, it is not feasible to draw a firm conclusion at this stage, for two main reasons. Firstly, very limited data were available for analysis, thus limiting data inference and generalization. Secondly, different methodology and control conditions were adopted in the two trials. Such variations not only require a careful interpretation of results but also make the comparison of results across studies less valid. Hence, there is an urgent need for more systematic and scientific research studies to examine the clinical value of snoezelen for people with dementia. To our knowledge, there are four RCTs currently in progress. It is hoped that the data and results of these trials will enrich the systematic review of snoezelen for dementia in the next update.

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Session‐based snoezelen versus control (activity session), Outcome 1 Behavior during sessions.
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Session‐based snoezelen versus control (activity session), Outcome 2 Behavior immediate after sessions.
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Session‐based snoezelen versus control (activity session), Outcome 3 Behavior at mid‐trial.
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Session‐based snoezelen versus control (activity session), Outcome 4 Behavior as generalized to home/ward at 1‐month follow up.
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Session‐based snoezelen versus control (activity session), Outcome 5 Behavior as generalized to home/ward at post‐trial.
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Session‐based snoezelen versus control (activity session), Outcome 6 Cognition at post‐trial.
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Session‐based snoezelen versus control (activity session), Outcome 7 Mood during sessions.
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Session‐based snoezelen versus control (activity session), Outcome 8 Mood immediatly after sessions.
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Session‐based snoezelen versus control (activity session), Outcome 9 Speech / interaction during sessions.
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Session‐based snoezelen versus control (activity session), Outcome 10 Speech / interaction immediately after sessions.
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 24 hr snoezelen versus control (usual care), Outcome 1 Behavior during sessions.
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 24 hr snoezelen versus control (usual care), Outcome 2 Behaviour as generalized to ward.
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 24 hr snoezelen versus control (usual care), Outcome 3 Mood during session.
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 24 hr snoezelen versus control (usual care), Outcome 4 Mood as generalized to ward.
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 24 hr snoezelen versus control (usual care), Outcome 5 Speech and interaction during sessions.

References

References to studies included in this review Baker 2001 {published and unpublished data}

    1. Baker R, Bell S, Baker E, Gibson S, Holloway J, Pearce R, Dowling Z, Thomas P, Assey J, Wareing LA. A randomized controlled trial of the effects of multi‐sensory stimulation (MSS) for people with dementia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 2001;40(1):81‐96.
    1. Baker R, Dowling Z, Wareing LA, Dawson J, Assey J. Snoezelen: Its long‐term and short‐term effects on olkder people with dementia. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 1997;60(5):213‐218.
Baker 2003 {published data only}
    1. Baker R, Holloway J, Holtkamp CCM, Larsson A, Hartman LC, Pearce, R, Scherman B, Johansson S, Thomas PW, Wareing LA, Owens M. Effects of multi‐sensory stimulation for people with dementia. Issues and Innovation in Nursing Practice 2003;43(5):465‐477.
van Weert 2005 {published data only}
    1. Weert JC, Dulmen AM, Spreeuwenberg PMM, Ribbe MW, Bensing JM. Effects of snoezelen, integrated in 24 h dementia care, on nursing‐patient communication during morning care. Patient Education and Conselling 2005;58:316‐326.
    1. Weert JCM, Dulmen AM, Spreeuwenberg PMM, Ribbe MW, Bensing JM. Behavioural and mood effects of Snoezelen integrated into 24‐hour dementia care. JAGS 2005;53(1):24‐33.
References to studies excluded from this review Baillon 2004 {published data only}
    1. Baillon S, Diepen E, Prettyman R, Redman, J, Rooke, N, Campbell R. A comparison of the effects of Snoezelen and reminscence therapy on the agitated behavior of patients with dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2004;19:1047‐1052.
Baillon 2005 {published data only}
    1. Baillon S, Diepen E, Prettyman R, Rooke N, Redman J, Campbell R. Variability in response of older people with dementia to both Snoezelen and reminiscence. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2005;68(8):367‐374.
Baillon 2006 {unpublished data only}
    1. Baillon S. A study of the long‐term and short‐term effects of Snoezelen and Reminiscence therapy on patients suffering from dementia who have associated agitated behavior problems. ISRCTN Register. 2006; ISSN: ISRCTN60367715.
Cox 2004 {published data only}
    1. Cox H, Burn I, Savage S. Multisensory environments for leisure: promoting well being in nursing home residents with dementia. Journal of Gerontological Nursing 2004;30(2):37‐45.
Heyn 2003 {published data only}
    1. Heyn P. The effect of a multisensory exercise program on engagement, behavior, and selected physiological indexes in persons with dementia. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias 2003;18(4):247‐51.
Kragt 1997 {published data only}
    1. Holtkamp CCM, Kragt K, Dongen MCJM, Rossum E, Salentijn C. [The effects of multi sensory stimulation on the behaviour of demented elderly] [Effecten van snoezelen op het gedrag van demente ouderen]. Tijdschrift voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie 1997;28:124‐8.
    1. Kragt K, Holtkamp CCM, Dongen MCJM, Rossum E, Salentijn C. [The effect of multi sensory stimulation in the multi sensory stimulation room on the wellbeing of demented elderly] [Het effect van snoezelen in de snoezelruimte op het welbevinden van demente ouderen]. Verpleegkunde 1997;12(4):227‐36.
Pinkney 1997 {published data only}
    1. Pinkney L. A comparison of the Snoezelen environment and a music relaxation group on the mood and behaviour of patients with senile dementia. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 1997;60(5):209‐18.
van Diepen 2002 {published data only}
    1. Diepen E, Baillon S, Redman J, Rooke N, Spencer DA, Prettyman R. A pilot study of the physiological and behavioural effects of Snoezelen in dementia. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2002;65(2):61‐5.
van Weert 2006 {published data only}
    1. Weert JCM, Janssen BM, Dulmen AM, Spreeuwenberg PMM, Bensing JM, Ribbe MW. Nursing assistants' behaviour during morning care: Effects of the implementation of snoezelen, integrated in 24‐hour dementia care. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2006;53(6):656‐68.
Additional references APA 1994
    1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
Baker 1988
    1. Baker R, Hall J. REHAB: A new assessment for chronic psychiatric patients. Schizophreniz Bulletin 1988;14:97‐111.
Baker 1995
    1. Baker R, Dowling Z. INTERACT. Research and Development Support Unit, Poole Hospital, Dorset 1995.
Beatty 1998
    1. Beatty W, Zavadil K, Bailly R, Rixen G, Zavadil L, Farnham N, Fisher L. Preserved musical skill in a severely demented patient. International Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology 1998;10:158‐64.
Buettner 1999
    1. Buettner LL. Simple pleasures: A multilevel sensorimotor intervention for nursing home residents with dementia. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 1999;14:41‐51.
Burns 2000
    1. Burns I, Cox H, Plant H. Leisure or therapeutics? Snoezelen and the care of older persons with dementia. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2000;6:118‐26.
Cariaga 1991
    1. Cariaga J, Burgio L, Flynn W, Martin D. A controlled study of disruptive vocalizations among geriatric residents in nursing homes. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1991;39:501‐7.
Clarke 2000
    1. Clarke M, Oxman AD. Assessment of study quality. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.1 (updated June 2000); Section 6. In: Review Manager (RevMan) (Computer Program). Version 4.1. Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2000.
Cohen‐Mansfield 1997
    1. Cohen‐Mansfield J, Werner P. Typology of disruptive vocalizations in older persons suffering from dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 1997;12:1079‐91.
Deakin 1995
    1. Deakin M. Using relaxation techniques to manage disruptive behaviour. Nursing Times 1995;91:40‐1.
Hall 1987
    1. Hall GR, Buckwalter KC. Progressively lowered stress threshold: A conceptual model for care of adults with Alzheimer's disease. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 1987;1(6):399‐406.
Hallberg 1993
    1. Hallberg IR, Edberg AK, Nordmark A. Daytime vocal activity in institutionalized severely demented patients identified as vocally disruptive by nurses. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 1993;8:155‐64.
Hope 1998
    1. Hope K. The effects of multisensory environments on older people with dementia. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 1998;5:377‐85.
Hulsegge 1987
    1. Hulsegge J, Verheul A. Snoezelen: Another world. Chesterfield: Rompa, 1987.
Hutchinson 1994
    1. Hutchinson R, Hagger L. The development and evaluation of a Snoezelen leisure resource for people with multiple disability. In: Hutchinson R, Kewin J editor(s). Sensations and disability: Sensory environments for leisure, Snoezelen, education and therapy. Chesterfield: Rompa, 1994:18‐48.
Kewin 1994
    1. Kewin J. Snoezelen: The reason and the method. In: Hutchinson R, Kewin J editor(s). Sensations and disability: Sensory environments for leisure, Snoezelen, education and therapy. Chesterfield: Rompa, 1994:6‐17.
Kitwood 1992
    1. Kitwood T, Bredin A. Towards a theory of dementia care. Aging and Society 1992;12:269‐287.
Kovach 1997
    1. Kovach CR. Late‐stage dementia care: A basic guide. Washington DC: Taylor & Francis, 1997.
Kovach 2000
    1. Kovach CR. Sensoristasis and imbalance in persons with dementia. Journal of Nursing Scholorship 2000;32(4):379‐384.
Lawton 1986
    1. Lawton MP. Environment and aging. Albany, NY: Centre for the Study of Aging, 1986.
Long 1992
    1. Long AP, Haig L. How do clients benefit from Snoezelen? An exploratory study. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 1992;55:103‐6.
McKenzie 1995
    1. McKenze C. Brightening the lives of elderly residents through Snoezelen. Nursing Practice 1995;7:11‐13.
McKhann 1984
    1. McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Neurology 1984;34:939‐44.
Moffat 1993
    1. Moffat N, Barker P, Pinkney L, Garside M, Freeman C. Snoezelen: An experience for people with dementia. Chesterfield: Rompa, 1993.
Savage 1996
    1. Savage P. Snoezelen for confused older people: Some concerns. Elderly Care 1996;8:20‐1.
Slevin 1999
    1. Slevin E, McClelland A. Multisensory environments: are they therapeutic? A single subject evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of a multisensory environment. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1999;8(1):48‐56.
Spaull 1998
    1. Spaull D, Leach C. An evaluation of the effects of sensory stimulation with people who have dementia. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 1998;26(1):77‐86.
van Weert 2004
    1. Weert JCM, Kerkstra A, Dulmen AM, Bensing JM, Peter JG, Ribbe MW. The implementation of snoezelen in psychogeriatric care: an evaluation through the eyes of caregivers. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2004;41:397‐409.
WHO 1993
    1. World Health Organization. The ICD‐10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1993.
References to other published versions of this review Chung 2002
    1. Chung JCC, Lai CKY. Snoezelen for dementia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 4 10.1002/14651858.CD003152. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003152]

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe