Search

Multisensory environments (MSEs) have become popular in schoolsfor students with severe disabilities in the UK, the US, and Australia, despite a lack of convincing research evidence for any positive effects on learning and behaviour. This paper reports on in depth interviews with stafffrom two schools in Sydney, NSW Australia that explored the background to the installations of MSEs, perceptions, and beliefs about the effects of use of MSEs. School staff was unfamiliar with the literature on MSEs and relied on the Internet and commercial firms for information. They accepted the claims made for the effects of MSEs, but translated these claims in the light of their beliefs about the needs of their student population. Calls are made for education departments to provide more information and support to schools when they make decisions about the use of resources and to support schools in making objective evaluations of the outcomes of use of MSEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adolescents with disability are less active and have lower levels of physical fitness than their typically developing peers. Schools are ideal settings to address this; however, few school-based interventions have been designed and evaluated among this group. Therefore, the aim of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility of a time-efficient school-based physical activity intervention for adolescents with disability. Methods: A non-randomized pilot trial was conducted with adolescents in the special education unit at one secondary school in New South Wales, Australia. Sixteen grade 11 and 12 students (aged 17.3 ± 0.7 years) participated in the 2-month physical activity intervention. Two classroom teachers were trained to facilitate the delivery of a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) program, known as Burn 2 Learn adapted (B2La). Teachers were asked to deliver 2–3 weekly HIIT sessions for a period of 2 months. Four domains of feasibility (acceptability, implementation, adaptability, and practicality) were assessed using quantitative measures at the student and teacher levels (e.g., observations, process evaluation questionnaires, and heart rate [HR] monitoring). Data were also collected from three learning and support teachers who assisted classroom teachers with intervention delivery. Preliminary efficacy of the intervention on measures of adolescents' functional capacity (6-min walk/run test) and muscular fitness (sit-to-stand test and modified push-up test) were analyzed using paired sample t-tests. Results: Moderate-to-high levels of program satisfaction were reported by both students (80% rated "Good" or "Excellent") and teachers (100% rated "Good" or "Excellent"). Teachers reported delivering 2.5 ± 0.7 sessions per week during the study. Based on researcher session observations, the program was delivered effectively by teachers (14/20). However, HR data indicated session intensity was lower than intended. The program was considered "adaptable" by teachers, with several observed modifications to HIIT sessions to cater for the needs of adolescents with disability. No adverse events were reported. We observed improvements in preliminary efficacy measures. Conclusions: Our findings suggest it is feasible to train teachers to deliver a school-based HIIT program for adolescents with disability. Evaluation of B2La within a larger-scale effectiveness trial is warranted. Trial registration: ACTRN12621000219886. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]