Exploring the use of Halliwick aquatic therapy in the rehabilitation of children with disabilities: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Halliwick aquatic therapy is a rehabilitation intervention that is gaining popularity for people with disabilities. This scoping review provides an overview on the state of research about the impact of Halliwick aquatic therapy for children with disabilities. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched to obtain research on the use of the Halliwick method for paediatric rehabilitation: Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO. Potential citations were first screened by title and abstract, and full texts were then examined on the second round of screening. We analyzed the demographic details of their study population, how therapy was implemented (e.g., lesson frequency or structure), and what measurements were used, with measured variables mapped onto the domains of the framework for health of the WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). RESULTS: Twenty-four publications met the inclusion criteria for this review. The majority of research included children with cerebral palsy (n = 12) or autism spectrum disorder (n = 8), with very few studies including other disabilities (n = 5). There was a wide variation in the number of lessons per study and how each lesson was structured. Fourteen studies lacked a control group. Looking at ICF domains, all 24 articles measured variables pertaining to body structure and functions, four looked for changes in performance of daily activities, four into ability to participate in social roles, and seven into changes in personal factors. CONCLUSION: There is no consensus on how the Halliwick method should be structured for participants, leaving a gap for future research on programme implementation. To shift our viewpoint beyond what a disability prevents to what one's level of health and functioning allows, it is important to broaden the scope of research into the other ICF domains.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".