The Uses and Effectiveness of Occupational Therapy Physical Activity Interventions in Young Children with Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) is often used to support the development of young children (<5 years) with disabilities. The effectiveness of PA as an occupational therapy (OT) treatment approach in this population has not yet been systematically examined. AIMS: This research aimed to explore the uses and effectiveness of OT PA interventions on developmental indicators in young children with developmental disabilities. METHODS: A systematic review of peer-reviewed publications (from 2000 onward) across six electronic databases was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to assess study quality. Narrative synthesis (vote counting and structured reporting of effects) was employed to summarize the findings. RESULTS: Eight studies with heterogenous interventions were included. Evidence demonstrated positive trends of participation in the PA interventions on physical, cognitive, and social-emotional indicators, with significance varying. There was no association between interventions and communication indicators or negative effects related to participation in the interventions. Overall, the studies were low-quality when judged by GRADE. CONCLUSIONS: PA may be a promising avenue for OT interventions among young children with developmental disabilities. Rigorous research is needed to determine the magnitude of effect PA has on developmental indicators.
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 | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".