Does physiotherapeutic intervention affect motor outcome in high-risk infants? An approach combining a randomized controlled trial and process evaluation

Abstract

AIM The aim of this study was to examine the effects of intervention in infants at risk of developmental disorders on motor outcome, as measured by the Infant Motor Profile (IMP) and using the combined approach of a randomized controlled trial and process evaluation.METHOD At a corrected age of 3 months, 46 infants (20 males, 26 females) recruited from the neonatal intensive care unit at the University Medical Centre Groningen (median birthweight 1210g, range 585-4750g; median gestational age 30wks, range 25-40wks) were included on the basis of definitely abnormal general movements. Exclusion criteria were severe congenital disorders and insufficient understanding of the Dutch language. The infants were assigned to either the familycentred COPing with and CAring for Infants with Special Needs (COPCA) intervention group (n=21; 9 males, 12 females) or the traditional infant physiotherapy (TIP) intervention group (n=25; 11 males, 14 females) for a period of 3 months. Three infants assigned to the TIP group (one male, two females) did not receive physiotherapy. IMP scores were measured by blinded assessors at 3, 4, 5, 6, and 18 months. At each age, the infants were neurologically examined. Physiotherapeutic sessions at 4 and 6 months were videotaped. Quantified physiotherapeutic actions were correlated with IMP scores at 6 and 18 months. RESULTSThe IMP scores of both the COPCA and TIP groups before, during, and after the intervention did not differ. Some physiotherapeutic actions were associated with IMP outcomes; the associations differed for infants who developed cerebral palsy (n=10) and those who did not (n=33). INTERPRETATIONAt randomized controlled trial level, the scores of both the TIP and COPCA groups did not differ in effect on motor outcome, as measured with the IMP. The analysis of physiotherapeutic actions revealed associations between these actions and IMP outcomes. However, the small sample size of this study precludes pertinent conclusions.

Pediatric Physical Therapy in Infancy: From Nightmare to Dream? A Two-Arm Randomized Trial

“…Further studies will have to explore these associations to an extent that can inform about causality. Our findings were in accordance with the findings of Hielkema et al, 24 who also found positive correlations between physical therapy actions characteristic for COPCA and developmental outcome at 18 months CA measured with the IMP. The findings perhaps are related to the COPCA approach, which aims at supporting family members on the basis of an ongoing, equal partnership in order to uncover their own specific problemsolving strategies for caring and coping with the infant with special needs.…”

“…Apart from the primary outcome, the IMP, 24 At 18 months CA, a neurological assessment was carried out according to Hempel. 39 The findings of the Hempel assessment were classified as neurologically normal, simple MND, complex MND, or CP.…”

Improvements in bimanual hand function after baby-CIMT in two-year old children with unilateral cerebral palsy: A retrospective study

“…No early intervention programme has yet demonstrated a long-lasting effect on motor development, in either preterm children (Spittle et al, 2012) or children at high risk of developmental disorders (Hielkema et al, 2011). As suggested by Hadders-Algra (2011), this might be because the previous programmes apply a broad developmental perspective and include various more or less defined treatment elements administrated to a heterogeneous group of children, i.e., including children who would not later fulfill the diagnostic criteria of CP (Hadders-Algra, 2011).…”

Feasibility of Orientation and Mobility Services for Young Children with Vision Impairment using Teleintervention

“…Using a variety of strategies that fostered the infants' selfmotivated, independently produced motor activities, these improved developmental outcomes included functional mobility. Hielkema et al (2011) During this time in children's lives, it is important for their families to receive an understanding of O&M to help them support the foundational skills necessary to establish good habits and to build more advanced travel skills in the future (Beelmann & Brambring, 1998;Kesiktas, 2009). O&M training for young children (birth through 3 years old) with B/VI involves a team-based, familycentred approach that focuses on sensory, concept, and movement development (Joffee, 1988;.…”