Pediatric Physical Therapy in Infancy: From Nightmare to Dream? A Two-Arm Randomized Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have suggested that early intervention by means of specific motor training programs and general developmental programs in which parents learn how to promote infant development may be the most promising ways to promote infant motor and cognitive development of infants with or at high risk for developmental motor disorders. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a recently developed pediatric physical therapy intervention program ("Coping With and Caring for Infants With Special Needs" [COPCA]) on the development of infants at high risk for developmental disorders using a combined approach of a 2-arm randomized trial and process evaluation. SETTING: The study was conducted at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: Forty-six infants at high risk for developmental disorders were randomly assigned to receive COPCA (a family-centered program) (n=21) or traditional infant physical therapy (TIP) (n=25) between 3 to 6 months corrected age (CA). Developmental outcome was assessed by blinded assessors at 3, 6, and 18 months CA with a neurological examination, the Alberta Infant Motor Scales, the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory, and the Mental Developmental Index (MDI) of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. Contents of the intervention were analyzed by a quantitative video analysis of therapy sessions. Quantified physical therapy actions were correlated to evaluate associations between intervention and developmental outcome components. RESULTS: The trial revealed that developmental outcome in both groups was largely identical. Process evaluation showed that typical COPCA actions-(1) family involvement and educational actions, (2) application of a wide variation in challenging the infant to produce motor behavior by himself or herself and allowing the infant to continue this activity, and (3) stimulation of motor behavior at the limit of the infant's capabilities-had positive correlations with developmental outcome at 18 months CA. The use of handling techniques was negatively associated with the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory outcome at 18 months CA. LIMITATIONS: Major limitations were the limited size of the groups studied and the differences between the groups in frequency and duration of physical therapy sessions. CONCLUSION: Extending the randomized trial with process evaluation was needed to obtain insight into associations between the components of intervention and developmental outcome. Specific therapist behaviors of parent coaching are associated with improved developmental outcome measures. Further studies are needed to examine whether these associations are caused by therapist behavior or whether therapist behavior is modified by children's motor skills.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».