Premium
Effectiveness of paediatric occupational therapy for children with disabilities: A systematic review
Author(s) -
Novak Iona,
Honan Ingrid
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
australian occupational therapy journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.595
H-Index - 44
eISSN - 1440-1630
pISSN - 0045-0766
DOI - 10.1111/1440-1630.12573
Subject(s) - medicine , cinahl , psychological intervention , occupational therapy , psycinfo , context (archaeology) , systematic review , coaching , randomized controlled trial , population , medline , critical appraisal , intervention (counseling) , physical therapy , psychology , nursing , alternative medicine , psychotherapist , paleontology , surgery , environmental health , pathology , political science , law , biology
Paediatric occupational therapy seeks to improve children's engagement and participation in life roles. A wide variety of intervention approaches exist. Our aim was to summarise the best‐available intervention evidence for children with disabilities, to assist families and therapists choose effective care. Methods We conducted a systematic review (SR) using the Cochrane methodology, and reported findings according to PRISMA. CINAHL, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, OTSeeker, PEDro, PsycINFO were searched. Two independent reviewers: (i) determined whether studies met inclusion: SR or randomised controlled trial (RCT); an occupational therapy intervention for children with a disability; (ii) categorised interventions based on name, core components and diagnostic population; (iii) rated quality of evidence and determined the strength of recommendation using GRADE criteria; and (iv) made recommendations using the Evidence Alert Traffic Light System. Results 129 articles met inclusion ( n = 75 (58%) SRs; n = 54 (42%)) RCTs, measuring the effectiveness of 52 interventions, across 22 diagnoses, enabling analysis of 135 intervention indications. Thirty percent of the indications assessed ( n = 40/135) were graded ‘do it’ (Green Go); 56% (75/135) ‘probably do it’ (Yellow Measure); 10% ( n = 14/135) ‘probably don't do it’ (Yellow Measure); and 4% ( n = 6/135) ‘don't do it’ (Red Stop). Green lights were: Behavioural Interventions; Bimanual; Coaching; Cognitive Cog‐Fun & CAPS; CO‐OP; CIMT; CIMT plus Bimanual; Context‐Focused; Ditto; Early Intervention (ABA, Developmental Care); Family Centred Care; Feeding interventions; Goal Directed Training; Handwriting Task‐Specific Practice; Home Programs; Joint Attention; Mental Health Interventions; occupational therapy after toxin; Kinesiotape; Pain Management; Parent Education; PECS; Positioning; Pressure Care; Social Skills Training; Treadmill Training and Weight Loss ‘Mighty Moves’. Conclusion Evidence supports 40 intervention indications, with the greatest number at the activities‐level of the International Classification of Function. Yellow light interventions should be accompanied by a sensitive outcome measure to monitor progress and red light interventions could be discontinued because effective alternatives existed.