Playfulness and New Technologies in Hand Therapy for Children With Cerebral Palsy: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Innovative technologies such as game consoles and smart toys used with games or playful approaches have proven to be successful and attractive in providing effective and motivating hand therapy for children with cerebral palsy (CP). Thus, there is an increased interest in designing and implementing interventions that can improve the well-being of these children. However, to understand how and why these interventions are motivating children, we need a better understanding of the playful elements of technology-supported hand therapy. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify the playful elements and the innovative technologies currently used in hand therapy for children with CP. METHODS: We included studies that design or evaluate interventions for children with CP that use innovative technologies with game or play strategies. Data were extracted and analyzed based on the type of technology, description of the system, and playful elements according to the Lenses of Play, a play design toolkit. A total of 31 studies were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 54 papers were included in the analysis. The results showed high use of consumer technologies in hand therapy for children with CP. Although several studies have used a combination of consumer technologies with therapeutic-specific technologies, only a few studies focused on the exclusive use of therapeutic-specific technologies. To analyze the playfulness of these interventions that make use of innovative technologies, we focused our review on 3 lenses of play: Open-ended Play, where it was found that the characteristics of ludus, such as a structured form of play and defined goals and rules, were the most common, whereas strategies that relate to paidia were less common. The most commonly used Forms of Play were physical or active form and games with rules. Finally, the most popular Playful experiences were control, challenge, and competition. CONCLUSIONS: The inventory and analysis of innovative technology and playful elements provided in this study can be a starting point for new developments of fun and engaging tools to assist hand therapy for children with CP.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".