Over the past decade, cognitive approaches with children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) have been investigated. Although studies have focused on intervention outcomes, few have documented the components of the approach that support the enhancement of children's performance. This study used systematic observation of videotaped intervention sessions to identify the frequency and type of strategies that four children with DCD used during a cognitive intervention (CO-OP). The strategies used by younger and older children were compared, with differences found in verbal-based strategy use. Cognitive strategy use appears to be more related to the individual child and intervention goal than to age.

ObjectivesThe primary objective is to systematically evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of task-specific training (TST) of gross motor skills for improving activity and/or participation outcomes in ambulant school-aged children with cerebral palsy (CP). The secondary objective is to identify motor learning strategies reported within TST and assess relationship to outcome.DesignSystematic review.MethodRelevant databases were searched for studies including: children with CP (mean age >4 years and >60% of the sample ambulant); TST targeting gross motor skills and activity (skill performance, gross motor function and functional skills) and/or participation-related outcomes. Quality of included studies was assessed using standardised tools for risk of bias, study design and quality of evidence across outcomes. Continuous data were summarised for each study using standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs.ResultsThirteen studies met inclusion criteria: eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three comparative studies, one repeated-measures study and one single-subject design study. Risk of bias was moderate across studies. Components of TST varied and were often poorly reported. Within-group effects of TST were positive across all outcomes of interest in 11 studies. In RCTs, between-group effects were conflicting for skill performance and functional skills, positive for participation-related outcomes (one study: Life-HABITS performance SMD=1.19, 95% CI 0.3 to 2.07, p<0.001; Life-HABITS satisfaction SMD=1.29, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.18, p=0.001), while no difference or negative effects were found for gross motor function. The quality of evidence was low-to-moderate overall. Variability and poor reporting of motor learning strategies limited assessment of relationship to outcome.ConclusionsLimited evidence for TST for gross motor skills in ambulant children with CP exists for improving activity and participation-related outcomes and recommendations for use over other interventions are limited by poor study methodology and heterogeneous interventions.RegistrationPROSPERO ID42016036727

Aim To determine whether short-phase Occupational Performance Coaching combined with service navigation support is feasible for families waiting for autism assessment. Method A pilot feasibility study was conducted using a blinded randomization procedure that allocated participants to one of three trial arms: (1) face-to-face coaching, (2) videoconference coaching, and (3) usual care. Outcomes included a retention aim of 70–80%, goal attainment and secondary standardised measures of adaptive behaviour, social skills, parenting stress, service access and family quality of life. Results Caregivers and children (n = 16, child mean age of 3 years 7 months) were recruited following referral for an autism assessment. Retention was 75%, with change scores in performance and satisfaction of selected goals higher in the intervention groups than the usual care group. Interpretation Findings support progression to a future randomized controlled trial assessing intervention efficacy.

No abstract

Our conceptualisation of autism spectrum disorder has changed over time, with recent classifications reflecting a heterogeneous clinical presentation now regularly encountered in routine general paediatric practice. As the prevalence of autism and associated demands for services have increased so has research into understanding the cause and trials aimed at providing best care and intervention. However, the heterogeneity of autism has meant that no single aetiology can account for all differences in presentation, and not all children benefit from broad‐based interventions. Now is the time to rethink how best to understand individual differences in order to focus research efforts and take steps towards more sophisticated strategies that go beyond the behaviours we look for when making an autism diagnosis. We suggest adopting a dimensional approach to autism assessment, with the consideration of eight spectrums of abilities, ways of thinking and behaviour. This eight‐spectrum approach will assist clinicians to consider each individual's strengths and needs and personalise interventions and support accordingly. Profiling individual skills across these dimensions may also provide researchers with a greater capacity to link causal pathways with specific phenotypes, which is needed to develop precision medicine for autism.

Background In Australia, the average time between a first concern of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and diagnosis is over 2 years. After referral for assessment, families often wait 6-12 months before their appointment. This can be a time of uncertainty and stress for families. For some families, other forms of assistance are not accessible and thus timely intervention opportunities are missed. There is little evidence about how to provide the best support for children or caregivers while on assessment waiting lists. Objective The aim of this study is to determine whether use of a coaching intervention called Occupational Performance Coaching (OPC) combined with service navigation support is feasible for families waiting for ASD assessment, as a crucial first step in planning a randomized controlled trial. Methods A pilot and feasibility study will be conducted using recommended constructs and associated measures, which will be reported using CONSORT (Consolidated Standards or Reporting Trials) guidance. Participants will be child and caregiver dyads or triads, recruited within 4 months of their child (aged 1-7 years) being referred to one of two services for an ASD assessment in Victoria, Australia. A blinded randomization procedure will be used to allocate participants to one of three trial arms: (1) coaching and support intervention delivered face to face, (2) coaching and support intervention via videoconference, and (3) usual care. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the sample characteristics of parents and children, inclusive of service access at baseline and follow up. Recruitment rates will be reported, and retention rates will be evaluated against a predicted rate of 70%-80% in each intervention arm. Goal attainment, using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, will indicate preliminary evidence for efficacy within the intervention arms, with an increase of 2 or more points on a 10-point performance and satisfaction scale considered clinically significant. Results The study was approved by The Royal Children’s Hospital Research Ethics and Governance Department in September 2018. As of October 2020, 16 families have been recruited to the study. Data analysis is ongoing and results are expected to be published in 2021. Conclusions Study findings will support planning for a future randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy of OPC and service navigation support for caregivers of children awaiting ASD assessment. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000164998; www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=378793&isReview=true International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/20011

No abstract

No abstract