How does the intensity of physical therapy affect the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66) total score in children with cerebral palsy? A systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Intensive physical therapy (PT) interventions administered to children with cerebral palsy (CP) have received a significant amount of attention in published literature. However, there is considerable variability in therapy intensity among studies and notable lack of information on optimal intervention dosing. This makes it difficult for clinicians to use evidence to inform practice. Many studies use the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66) to assess functional progress in children with CP. The purpose of this systematic review will be to identify the GMFM-66 change score reported in published studies, with outcomes based on intervention intensity. Whether the type of PT intervention, child's age, and Gross Motor Function Classification System level influence the GMFM-66 scores will be also assessed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 checklist. In March 2018, nine databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and REHABDATA) were searched for controlled clinical trials and single-subject design studies of PT interventions of any kind and intensity that used the GMFM-66 as an outcome measure for children with CP, age up to 18 years. Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts and arrived at consensus on paper selection for a full-text review. The same process was used for a full-text article screening based on further detailed inclusion criteria, with a final selection made for those suitable for data extraction. Prior to commencement of data extraction, all searches will be updated, and new results re-screened. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will involve a systematic review of published articles and no primary data collection. Therefore, no ethical approval will be necessary. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented at scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020147669.

Feasibility of an intensive outpatient Perception-Action Approach intervention for children with cerebral palsy: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study was (1) to evaluate feasibility of attendance and parent satisfaction with an intensive outpatient physical and occupational therapy program for young children with spastic cerebral palsy (CP) and (2) to examine changes in motor function. Methods: Sixteen children with CP, age range 18-36 months (mean 24.3 ± 6.3 months), received physical and occupational therapy sessions (30 minutes each) 5 days per week for 12 weeks. Attendance rates and parent satisfaction were assessed. Change in motor function using a one-group pre-post design was evaluated using the Gross Motor Function Measure-66 (GMFM-66), Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test, and Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. GMFM-66 outcomes were also compared with expected outcomes using previously published normative developmental trajectories of children receiving standard therapies. Results: An average of 82% of scheduled outpatient physical and occupational therapies for 16 children were completed and the 11 parents who completed the Hills and Kitchen's Physiotherapy Outpatient Satisfaction Questionnaire were satisfied with the therapies and with their child's progress. Participants showed notable, statistically significant improvement across all activity-related measures. Conclusion: An intensive protocol of outpatient therapies utilizing Perception-Action Approach was feasible for most families of young children with spastic CP to attend at the outpatient clinic location. As this was not an experimental study, no reliable conclusions related to efficacy can be made, but the promising results suggest that further research into the effectiveness of intensive protocols is worthwhile.

Parental attitudes and perceptions associated with childhood vaccine exemptions in high-exemption schools.

Previous work demonstrates that individuals who obtain exemptions from school immunization requirements are geographically clustered, making regional differences in vaccination coverage a significant concern. Even where exemption levels are high, there are still parents that vaccinate. School-level assessments have determined that exemptors are more likely to attend wealthier schools with fewer minorities. Few studies have assessed divergent opinions within the context of a higher-exemption community to examine subtle differences in opinion surrounding vaccinations. Therefore, the objective of this work was to assess attitudes and perceptions towards vaccinations and compare them for exemptors and non-exemptors. We administered surveys to parents in high-exemption (>10%) elementary schools in Arizona during the 2012-13 school year. A total of 404 surveys were completed by parents among schools in Maricopa (n = 7) and Yavapai (n = 2) counties. Of these, 35% (n = 141) were exemptors and 65% (n = 261) were non-exemptors. Exemptors were more likely than non-exemptors to be concerned about serious side-effects (p<0.001). They were more likely to report knowing someone who had been diagnosed with a vaccine-preventable disease (p<0.001) but less likely to report that this had been a serious illness in that person (p<0.001) and they believed it is better for a child to develop immunity through illness than vaccination (p<0.001). They were less likely to trust physicians (p<0.001) and information about vaccines (p<0.001) and were more likely to obtain their health care from a naturopath (p<0.001). In summary, exemptors in these Arizona schools do not appear to be exempting their children from vaccinations due to convenience, as has been hypothesized in other settings. Based on the divergent views within high-exemption schools and reported distrust of the medical establishment, target interventions for high-exemption schools are discussed. Additionally, given the lack of effective non-policy based interventions to-date, the negligible declines in personal belief exemption rates, and vaccine preventable disease rate increases in Arizona, especially in high-exemption areas, legislative action in Arizona may also warrant further investigation.

Perceptions of personal belief vaccine exemption policy: a survey of Arizona vaccine providers.

BACKGROUND: As exemptions to school-entry requirements rise, vaccination rates in Arizona school children are approaching levels that may threaten public health. Understanding the interactions physicians have with vaccine-hesitant parents, as well as the opinions physicians hold regarding vaccination, exemption, and exemption policies, are critical to our understanding of, and ability to affect, vaccination exemption rates among children. METHODS: Survey responses were elicited from practitioners listed in The Arizona Partnership for Immunization and the Arizona Medical Association databases using a multi-pronged recruitment approach. Respondents provided data regarding their practice, comfort with parental refusal of individual vaccines, opinions about the beliefs held by parents that seek exemptions, parent education strategies, issues regarding providing care to unvaccinated children, and potential changes to Arizona policy. RESULTS: A total of 152 practitioners providing care to a wide geographic and economic population of Arizona responded to the survey. Respondents were generally strong advocates of all immunizations but were more accepting of parents' desires to refuse hepatitis B and rotavirus vaccines. Almost all providers indicated that they see patients whose parents request to refuse or delay from vaccinations at least occasionally (88% and 97%, respectively). Only 37% of respondents indicated that they would be supportive of a policy requiring them to sign off on a parent's decision to refuse vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination providers in Arizona are generally very supportive of childhood immunizations but have varying comfort with exemption from individual vaccines. Responding providers tended to not support a requirement for a physician's signature for vaccine exemptions due to varying concerns regarding the implementation of such a practice.