Participation in physical activities for children with cerebral palsy: feasibility and effectiveness of physical activity on prescription
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with cerebral palsy (CP) are less physically active and more sedentary than other children which implies risk factors for their physical and mental health. Physical activity on prescription (PAP) is an effective intervention to promote a lifestyle change towards increased physical activity in adults in general. Knowledge is lacking about the use of PAP in children with CP. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of PAP for children with CP and its effectiveness on participation in physical activity and sedentary behaviour. METHODS: Eleven children with CP, aged 7-11 years, participated in PAP, consisting of a written agreement between each child, their parents and the physiotherapist and based on Motivational Interviewing (MI), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS). Individual goals, gross motor function and physical activity were assessed at baseline, at 8 and/or 11 months using COPM, GAS, logbooks, Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66), physical activity questionnaires, physical activity and heart rate monitors and time-use diaries. At 8 and 11 months the feasibility of the intervention and costs and time spent for the families and the physiotherapist were evaluated by questionnaires. RESULTS: The intervention was feasible according to the feasibility questionnaire. Each child participated in 1-3 self-selected physical activities during 3-6 months with support from the physiotherapist, and clinically meaningful increases from baseline of COPM and GAS scores were recorded. Being physically active at moderate-vigorous levels varied between less than 30 and more than 240 minutes/day, and the median for the whole group was 84 minutes/day at baseline and 106 minutes/day at 8 months. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention PAP seems to be feasible and effective for children with CP, involving both every day and organised physical activities to promote an active lifestyle through increased participation, motivation, and engagement in physical activities. Further research of PAP is needed, preferably in a long term randomised controlled trial and including health economic analysis to show costs and benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN76366356, retrospectively registered.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".