Talk:Low arousal approach

'sexual arousal' changed to 'arousal'
I've changed 'sexual arousal' in the original article to read 'arousal'. Within learning disabilities and autism, 'arousal' does not mean 'sexual arousal', but instead applies to a state where someone is unable to process their environment due to excessive noise, movement, or activity (see the section on a low-arousal environment on http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1541&a=15189). Broadbandtest (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

First sentence of the article
In my opinion, some of the information that is now found later in the article, should be moved (or, copied) so that it is included in the first sentence of the article, or at least in the first paragraph of the article.

Current Status
As of (the last time I checked, prior to) this writing, the first sentence of the article said: A low arousal approach deals with how staff handles patients who are aroused.

What should be included in the first part of the article?
In my opinion, the examples listed here, are some items of information that might be helpful / appropriate, in the "introductory" part of the article:


 * the fact that a Low arousal approach may be "employed in healthcare settings" (perhaps it should also say "often" or "sometimes"). Currently, this phrase ("employed in healthcare settings") is not mentioned until the 3rd paragraph of the article.


 * the fact that a Low arousal approach may be useful / appropriate "for the management of challenging behaviour." That is, to avoid, or prevent, or respond to, "challenging behaviour".  Currently, this phrase ("for the management of challenging behaviour") is not mentioned until the 3rd paragraph of the article.


 * the fact that a Low arousal approach may be useful / appropriate for situations that are (or, have a chance of becoming) "high risk situations". Currently, this phrase ("high risk situations") is not mentioned until the 2nd paragraph of the article.


 * the fact that a Low arousal approach may be a candidate to be considered [useful / appropriate for]
 * a situation that either
 * --> involves a person with an intellectual disability,
 * or
 * --> involves a person in a hospital setting or both. Currently, the phrases "with an intellectual disability" and "in a hospital setting" are both not mentioned until the 4th paragraph of the article.

I am not certain that all of this info needs to be crammed in to the first sentence of the article. It might not fit. But I think that it would be helpful to the reader, if these things were mentioned in the first paragraph, at least. And some of this info might well fit in the first sentence.

I would have just "edited away", with changes to the "introductory" part of the article...; however, if I had done that, then my own lack of perspective and understanding here, might have lead to jumping to some conclusions. If the responses to these suggestions are encouraging (or helpful in some way), then I may go ahead myself, and try to "edit" the article to implement some or all of these suggestions. If there are no responses at all, in some reasonable period of time, then I still might do that.

If the responses to these suggestions take me by surprise completely, then they still might lead to some ideas for helpful changes to the article, but - in that case - maybe different from what I have in mind now.

What about "interpersonal conflict"?
At the very bottom of the article, it says, (on a line by itself) Special:Categories Interpersonal conflict (and neither of those links is red... [I do not know much about how "Categories" work]); but - as far as I can see - the words "interpersonal conflict" are not used in the article -- at least, not in the "introductory" part of the article.

[proposed] "idea" for the intro part of the article
I would welcome some suggestions from others, about how to modify the introductory part of the article. (the first paragraph, say).

Here (to start off), I offer one "candidate" idea for [changes to] the first 2 sentences of the article.


 * 1) A low arousal approach is a method that may be used by staff in a healthcare setting, such as a hospital, to deal with a patient who is (or might become) aroused.  It might be used when dealing with a person with an intellectual disability or an emotional disorder, or for the management of challenging behaviour, or just in order to avoid [or defuse] a (potentially) "high risk situation".

I realize this [example] might be trying to cram too much "stuff" in to two "introductory" sentences. Hence I am discussing it here (on the "Talk:" page) first!

Thanks! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Low arousal approach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022092931/http://studio3.org/research/chapter8n.htm to http://studio3.org/research/chapter8n.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022092946/http://studio3.org/research/low_arousal_approaches.htm to http://studio3.org/research/low_arousal_approaches.htm
 * Added tag to http://studio3.org/members/showthread.php?t=265

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

How recognised is it?
It says (it is today the 25th of January 2024. It says in the article: "Within the study of human behavior, the Low Arousal Approach was developed by Professor Andrew McDonnell in the 1990s, and is now an internationally recognized model of behavior support." In the list of languages in which you can read about this topic, there is only one other language. How internationally recognised is this apporach - really? And what is it for? Using it to calm a situation with a panicking person with autism or a mental disability, it might be a very good thing. For the police to use the approach towards miscreants (often from so called "honour" cultures who see a non-violent approach as a sign of weakness) and for teachers to use it in schools towards troublemakers (not seldom with the same worldview as described above), might not be as good. 31.211.201.66 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)