4.2 Review

Physical Activity Interventions for Children with Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Disabilities-A Systematic Review

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000452

关键词

physical activity; exercise; ADHD; ASD; ODD; CD; Bipolar Disorder; depression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Perform a systematic review of the available literature regarding the effectiveness of exercise interventions on children with any type of social, emotional, or behavioral disability (SEBD), with attention to a range of physiological, behavioral, and mood outcomes. Methods: Six databases were searched using a systematic methodology. References of included studies, as well as relevant reviews, were also examined. The review was limited to studies published since 2000 reporting a quantitative analysis of the effects of a physical activity (PA) intervention on at least 1 behavioral, psychological, or cognitive outcome in children aged 21 and under, diagnosed with a SEBD. Only studies with a control group were included. Results: We identified 24 eligible studies. Studies varied in design, participant characteristics, and intervention characteristics (single-bout vs repeated exposure, duration, intensity level, mode of exercise). Of the 20 behavioral outcome assessments, there was 1 negative finding, 12 null findings, 5 positive findings, and 2 mixed findings. For the 25 executive functioning outcome assessments, there were 5 null findings, 18 positive findings, and 2 mixed findings. For the remaining outcome domains, 1 of 2 studies looking at academic performance, 3 of 6 studies looking at objective neurological measures, and 1 of 3 studies looking at affect outcomes found positive results. All other results were null or mixed. Conclusion: Although additional research is warranted to further understand the mechanisms by which PA affects behavioral and cognitive outcome measures in children with SEBDs, PA offers a safe and alternative form of treatment for this population.

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

4.2
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