School-based allied health interventions for children and young people affected by neurodisability: a systematic evidence map.

PURPOSE: To systematically map available evidence for school-based interventions led by allied health (i.e., occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and/or speech and language therapy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched for studies in pre-school, primary, secondary, or post-secondary settings, published 2004-2020. We coded study, population, and intervention characteristics. Outcomes were coded inductively, categorised, and linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. RESULTS: We included 337 studies (33 countries) in an interactive evidence map. Participants were mainly pre-school and primary-aged, including individuals with neurodisability and whole-school populations. Interventions targeted wide-ranging outcomes, including educational participation (e.g., writing, reading) and characteristics of school environments (e.g., educators' knowledge and skills, peer support). Universal, targeted, and intensive interventions were reported in 21.7%, 38.9%, and 60.2% of studies, respectively. Teachers and teaching assistants delivered interventions in 45.4% and 22.6% of studies, respectively. 43.9% of studies conducted early feasibility testing/piloting and 54.9% had ≤30 participants. Sixty-two randomised controlled trials focused on intervention evaluation or implementation. CONCLUSIONS: In the United Kingdom, future research should take forward school-based allied health interventions that relate directly to agreed research priorities. Internationally, future priorities include implementation of tiered (universal, targeted, intensive) intervention models and appropriate preparation and deployment of the education workforce. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAllied health professionals (occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and speech and language therapists) work in schools supporting children and young people affected by neurodisability but the content, impact, and cost-effectiveness of their interventions are not well-understood.We systematically mapped the available evidence and identified that allied health school-based interventions target highly diverse health-related outcomes and wider determinants of children and young people's health, including educational participation (e.g., literacy) and characteristics of the school environment (e.g., educators' knowledge and skills).Our interactive evidence map can be used to help stakeholders prioritise the interventions most in need of further evaluation and implementation research, including tiered models of universal, targeted, and intensive allied health support.Teachers and teaching assistants play a central role in delivering allied health interventions in schools - appropriate preparation and deployment of the education workforce should therefore be a specific priority for future international allied health research.

Understanding frames: A qualitative exploration of standing frame use for young people with cerebral palsy in educational settings.

BACKGROUND: Consensus opinion supports standing frame use as part of postural management for nonambulant young people with cerebral palsy. Most young people with cerebral palsy in the United Kingdom, who use standing frames, use them at nursery or school, rather than at home. In this paper we report professionals' and parents' experiences and views of standing frame use specifically in educational settings. This research was conducted as part of a large mixed methods study to determine the acceptability and inform the design of a future trial of standing frames. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used: focus groups with educational professionals, parents and clinicians (paediatricians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists) were convened. Data were analysed thematically using framework analysis. RESULTS: Five focus groups were conducted. The overarching theme "flexibility" encompassed four subordinate themes: (i) "balancing education and therapy," which described the way education professionals had to juggle different priorities from health professionals within a multi-disciplinary team; (ii) "young people's autonomy," which highlighted participants' belief that standing frame use should be centred on the individual young person and their needs; (iii) "working within logistical boundaries," which demonstrated that "ideal" standing frame use was not always possible due to logistical issues (e.g., staffing and standing frame availability); and (iv) "competence and confidence," which highlighted that educational professionals felt that they lacked the training to confidently position young people in their standing frame. CONCLUSIONS: This paper highlights the complexity of standing frame use in the educational setting. If a standing frame programme is prescribed to be delivered in an educational setting, strong multidisciplinary and interagency communication is essential to balance therapy versus education. Training is required to ensure staff are competent in using the standing frame with the young person understanding their individual requirements. A flexible approach-inclusive of the young person's needs, logistical demands and resource-is necessary.

Standing frames for children with cerebral palsy: a mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Standing frames are recommended as part of postural management for young people with cerebral palsy (CP) Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) level IV or V. They may have a variety of benefits, including improving bone mineral density, gastrointestinal function and social participation. The NHS needs to know if these benefits are real, given the cost implications of use and the reported negative effects (e.g. pain). The lack of evidence for the clinical effectiveness of standing frames demonstrates the need for evaluative research. OBJECTIVE(S): The aim of the study was to explore the acceptability of a future trial to determine the clinical effectiveness of standing frames. DESIGN: A sequential mixed-methods design was used. The findings of each stage informed the next stage. We conducted surveys, focus groups and in-depth interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Professionals who work with young people who use standing frames and parents who have a child who uses a standing frame took part in a survey of current standing frame practice (n = 551), a series of focus groups (seven focus groups, 49 participants in total) and a survey of research trial acceptability and feasibility (n = 585). Twelve young people who use a standing frame were interviewed. RESULTS: Standing frames were widely used as part of postural management for young people with CP both in school and at home but more frequently in school, and particularly by young people in primary school. Achieving the prescribed use was not always possible owing to resources, environment and family factors. Participation and activity engagement were important to young people. The majority of participants believed that standing frames research is necessary. Some reported concern that stopping standing frame use for a trial would cause irreversible damage. The maximum amount of time most health professionals and parents would agree to suspend standing frame use would be 12 weeks. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the nature of recruitment, we could not calculate response rates or determine non-response bias. Therefore, participants may not be representative of all standing frame users. CONCLUSIONS: Although parents and professionals who engaged in the qualitative aspect of this research and stakeholders who took part in the design workshops appreciated the lack of clinical evidence, our surveys, qualitative information and PPI demonstrated that most people had strong beliefs regarding the clinical effectiveness of standing frames. However, with key stakeholder engagement and careful planning, a trial would be acceptable. FUTURE WORK: We recommend a carefully planned trial that includes a pilot phase. The trial should evaluate the following question: 'does using a standing frame in school improve patient-reported outcomes of participation (primary outcome), quality of life, subjective well-being, body function and body structure (secondary outcomes) in young children (aged 4-11 years) with CP GMFCS III-V?'. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.