BackgroundMotor learning is central to domains such as sports and rehabilitation; however, often terminologies are insufficiently uniform to allow effective sharing of experience or translation of knowledge. A study using a Delphi technique was conducted to ascertain level of agreement between experts from different motor learning domains (i.e., therapists, coaches, researchers) with respect to definitions and descriptions of a fundamental conceptual distinction within motor learning, namely implicit and explicit motor learning.MethodsA Delphi technique was embedded in multiple rounds of a survey designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions of 49 international respondents with expertise related to motor learning. The survey was administered via an online survey program and accompanied by feedback after each round. Consensus was considered to be reached if ≥70% of the experts agreed on a topic.ResultsConsensus was reached with respect to definitions of implicit and explicit motor learning, and seven common primary intervention strategies were identified in the context of implicit and explicit motor learning. Consensus was not reached with respect to whether the strategies promote implicit or explicit forms of learning.DiscussionThe definitions and descriptions agreed upon may aid translation and transfer of knowledge between domains in the field of motor learning. Empirical and clinical research is required to confirm the accuracy of the definitions and to explore the feasibility of the strategies that were identified in research, everyday practice and education.

Monitoring technology is a promising field, with applications to the long-term care of elderly persons. However, monitoring technologies have to be brought to the next level, with longitudinal studies that evaluate their (cost-) effectiveness to demonstrate the potential to prolong independent living of elderly persons. [Box: see text].

The aim of this study was to gain insight into how robots can be practically implemented into current education and therapy interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This qualitative study included focus groups and co-creation sessions. 73 Participants (professionals and adults with ASD) took part in 13 focus groups to elicit requirements for robot assisted interventions. Additionally, 22 participants (professionals, parents of children with ASD and adults with ASD) generated ideas for interventions using robot KASPAR in three co-creation sessions. This study resulted in: an overview of requirements concerning the robot, end-user, environment and practical implementation; a template to systematically describe robot interventions in general and for KASPAR in particular; and finally new interventions.

BackgroundA variety of options and techniques for causing implicit and explicit motor learning have been described in the literature. The aim of the current paper was to provide clearer guidance for practitioners on how to apply motor learning in practice by exploring experts’ opinions and experiences, using the distinction between implicit and explicit motor learning as a conceptual departure point.MethodsA survey was designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions and experiences from 40 international respondents who had demonstrable expertise related to motor learning in practice and/or research. The survey was administered through an online survey tool and addressed potential options and learning strategies for applying implicit and explicit motor learning. Responses were analysed in terms of consensus (≥ 70%) and trends (≥ 50%). A summary figure was developed to illustrate a taxonomy of the different learning strategies and options indicated by the experts in the survey.ResultsAnswers of experts were widely distributed. No consensus was found regarding the application of implicit and explicit motor learning. Some trends were identified: Explicit motor learning can be promoted by using instructions and various types of feedback, but when promoting implicit motor learning, instructions and feedback should be restricted. Further, for implicit motor learning, an external focus of attention should be considered, as well as practicing the entire skill. Experts agreed on three factors that influence motor learning choices: the learner’s abilities, the type of task, and the stage of motor learning (94.5%; n = 34/36). Most experts agreed with the summary figure (64.7%; n = 22/34).ConclusionThe results provide an overview of possible ways to cause implicit or explicit motor learning, signposting examples from practice and factors that influence day-to-day motor learning decisions.

Objectives To examine the efficacy of early intervention on the prevention of long-term sickness absence and major depression among employees at high risk of future sickness absence and with mild to severe depressive complaints. Methods Randomised controlled trial conducted among employees working in an office environment. 139 employees were identified both at high risk of future sickness absence and with mild to severe depressive complaints through screening. Subsequently, they were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n¼69) or the control group (n¼70). Objective sickness absence was analysed at 12 and 18 months of follow-up. Depressive complaints were assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) at baseline, and at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. Results Intention-to-treat analyses showed a significant difference in total sickness absence duration between the intervention (27.5 calendar days (SD 44.7)) and control group (50.8 days (SD 75.8)) over 12 months of follow-up, a reduction of 46% (p¼0.017). The intervention group showed a non-significantly lower proportion of long-term sickness absence spells compared with the control group (p¼0.127). Statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in depressive complaints were found after both 6 months (p¼0.001) and 12 months (p¼0.005) of follow-up, in favour of the intervention group. Relative risk reductions (RRR) were 19.2% and 19.8% respectively. Sickness absence data were available for all participants over 18 months of follow-up. Questionnaire data were available for 99 (at 6 months) and 90 participants (at 12 months). No adverse events or side effects occurred. Conclusions Early intervention in employees with mild to severe depressive complaints and high risk of future long-term sickness absence proved to be effective in preventing/reducing both sickness absence and depressive complaints.