4.5 Article

Caregiver-directed home-based intensive bimanual training in young children with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy: a randomized trial

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
卷 59, 期 5, 页码 497-504

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.13330

关键词

-

资金

  1. Children's Hemiplegia and Stroke Association (CHASA)
  2. Teachers College, Columbia University Doctoral Dissertation Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimTo examine the efficacy of caregiver-directed, home-based intensive bimanual training in children with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy (USCP) using a randomized control trial. MethodTwenty-four children (ages 2y 6mo-10y 1mo; 10 males, 14 females) performed home-based activities directed by a caregiver for 2 hours per day, 5 days per week, for 9 weeks (total=90h). Cohorts of children were age-matched into groups and randomized to receive home-based hand-arm bimanual intensive therapy (H-HABIT; n=12) or lower-limb functional intensive training (LIFT-control; n=12). Caregivers were trained before the intervention and supervised remotely via telerehabilitation. Dexterity and bimanual hand function were assessed using the Box and Blocks test (BBT) and the Assisting Hand Assessment (AHA) respectively. Caregiver perception of functional goals was measured using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). ResultsH-HABIT showed greater improvement on the BBT compared to LIFT-control and no improvement on the AHA. H-HABIT demonstrated significant improvement in COPM-Performance compared to LIFT-control and both groups showed equal improvement in COPM-Satisfaction. InterpretationH-HABIT improved dexterity and performance of functional goals, but not bimanual performance, in children with USCP compared to a control group receiving intervention of equal intensity/duration that also controlled for increased caregiver attention. Home-based models provide a valuable, family-centered approach to achieve increased treatment intensity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据