Pediatric Physical Therapy in Infancy: From Nightmare to Dream? A Two-Arm Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".