Aquatic Therapy in Children and Adolescents with Disabilities: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, around 1 in 10 children aged 0-17 years have moderate-to-severe disabilities. The aquatic environment provides hydrostatic and hydrodynamic characteristics that make exercise and therapy feasible for children and adolescents with disabilities. The objective of this scoping review is to understand the extent and type of evidence in relation to the use of aquatic therapy in children and adolescents with disabilities. The eligibility criteria were as follows: participants-children and/or adolescents with disabilities aged from 6 to 18 years old; concept-aquatic therapy interventions; context-any available setting. The databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, Eric, Scopus, Web of Science, Epistemonikos, and one register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. In total, 52 reports met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies included children/adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; 46.7%)-442 participants in 21 studies in total. The majority of interventions were based on aquatic exercise (35%). Most often, interventions were conducted for 8 weeks, with 2 sessions a week lasting 60 min. The most common type of intervention for children and adolescents with ASD and Down syndrome was swimming. Participants with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, neuromuscular disorders, and cerebral palsy were more often treated with aquatic exercises. This scoping review could guide practitioners, clinicians, and researchers on what type, setting, and content of aquatic therapy interventions, including exercise types, intervention duration, number of sessions, frequency, facility, and provider, are used with children and adolescents with disabilities.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".