Search

Workshops using arts and board games are forms of non-pharmacological intervention widely employed in seniors with neurocognitive disorders. However, clear guidelines on how to conduct these workshops are missing. The objective of the Art and Game project (AGAP) was to draft recommendations on the structure and content of workshops for elderly people with neurocognitive disorders and healthy seniors, with a particular focus on remote/hybrid workshops, in which at least a part of the participants is connected remotely. Recommendations were gathered using a Delphi methodology. The expert panel (N = 18) included experts in the health, art and/or board games domains. They answered questions via two rounds of web-surveys, and then discussed the results in a plenary meeting. Some of the questions were also shared with the general public (N = 101). Both the experts and the general public suggested that organizing workshops in a hybrid format (some face-to-face sessions, some virtual session) is feasible and interesting for people with neurocognitive disorders. We reported guidelines on the overall structure of workshops, practical tips on how to organize remote workshops, and a SWOT analysis of the use of remote/hybrid workshops. The guidelines may be employed by clinicians to decide, based on their needs and constraints, what interventions and what kind of workshop format to employ, as well as by researcher to standardize procedures to assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments for people with neurocognitive disorders.

Despite the efficacy of functional analyses in identifying the function of challenging behavior, clinicians report not always using them, partly due to safety concerns. Understanding how researchers employ safeguards to mitigate risks, particularly with dangerous topographies like self-injurious behavior (SIB), is important to guide research and practice. However, the results of a scoping review of functional analyses of self-injurious behavior conducted by Weeden et al. (2010) revealed that only 19.83% of publications included protections. We extended the work of Weeden et al. to determine whether reporting has improved. We observed increases in all but two types of protections reviewed by Weeden et al. Additionally, we included new protections not reported by Weeden et al. In total, 69.52% of the studies included at least one protective procedure and 44.39% specified that the protections were used for safety. It appears that reporting has increased since Weeden et al. called for improved descriptions of participant protections.