4.5 Article

Determinants of intensity of participation in leisure and recreational activities by children with cerebral palsy

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
卷 53, 期 2, 页码 142-149

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03819.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Shriners Hospitals for Children (COS) [9197]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To test a model of child, family, and service determinants of intensity of participation in leisure and recreational activities by children with cerebral palsy (CP). Method Participants were 288 children with CP, age range 6 to 12 years (mean 9y 8mo, SD 2y), and their parents from seven children's hospitals. The sample comprised 166 (57.6%) males and 122 (42.4%) females, and between 40 (13.9%) and 74 (25.7%) children in each of the five levels of the Gross Motor Function Classification System. Children completed the Children's Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment by interview. Parents completed the Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument, Family Environment Scale, Coping Inventory, Measure of Processes of Care, and two questionnaires. Structural equation modeling was used to test the model. Results Fit statistics indicated a good model fit. The model explains 32% of the variance in intensity of participation. Path coefficients (p < 0.05) indicate that higher gross motor function, higher enjoyment, more effective adaptive behavior, younger age, and higher family activity orientation are associated with higher intensity of participation. The path between services and participation was not significant. Interpretation Intensity of participation of children with CP is influenced by multiple child and family determinants. Children's gross motor function and behavior in life situations are important for participation; knowledge of activities the child and family enjoy has implications for opportunities for participation. Professionals are encouraged to address priorities for leisure and recreation identified by children with CP and their families.

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