Search

Introduction: The Children with Hemiparesis Arm and Movement Project (CHAMP) addresses two pressing issues concerning paediatric constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT): effects of two dosages and two types of constraint on functional outcomes. Systematic reviews conclude that CIMT is one of the most efficacious treatments, but wide variations in treatment protocols, outcome measures and patient characteristics have prevented conclusions about potential effects of dosage levels and constraint methods., Methods and Analysis: CHAMP is a multisite comparative efficacy randomised controlled trial of 135 children (2-8 years) with hemiparetic cerebral palsy. The 2×2 factorial design tests two dosage levels-60 hours (3.0 hours/day, 5 days/week × 4 weeks) and 30 hours (2.5 hours/day, 3 days/week × 4 weeks) and two constraint conditions-full-arm, full-time cast and part-time splint, plus usual and customary (UCT) controls, yielding five groups: (1) 60 hours CIMT+full-time cast, (2) 60 hours CIMT+part-time splint, (3) 30 hours CIMT+full-time cast, (4) 30 hours CIMT+part-time splint and (5) UCT. Trained therapists deliver the standardised ACQUIREc protocol for CIMT. Blinded assessments at baseline, end of treatment, and 6 and 12 months post treatment include the Assisting Hand Assessment, and subscales from the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 and modified Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test. Parents complete the Pediatric Motor Activity Log and Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. A new Fidelity of Implementation Rehabilitation Measure monitors treatment delivery. Data analyses involve repeated-measures multivariate analysis of co-variance controlling for selected baseline variables., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics boards at site universities approved the study protocol. To promote equipoise, parents of UCT controls are offered ACQUIREc after 6 months. A Data Safety and Monitoring Committee reviews results regularly, including measures of child and family stress. We will disseminate CHAMP results via peer-reviewed publications and presentations to professional and advocacy organisations., Trial Registration Number: NCT01895660; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Selective eating is common in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but it is not yet well understood. The objectives of this study were to examine a new definition of selective eating, compare behavioral measures between children with ASD and selective eating and those without selective eating, and determine relationships among behavioral measures and measures of selective eating. Participants were assigned to groups on the basis of number of foods eaten compared with a population-based sample. Results of one-way multivariate analysis of variance indicated no overall effect of group for challenging behaviors, sensory reactivity, or repetitive behaviors. Between-participant tests indicated that scores for compulsive behaviors were significantly lower (p = .036) for the selective eating group. Correlations were moderately strong among variables relating to food intake and behavioral variables, but were not significant between selective eating and behavioral variables. Further research is needed to validate the definition of selective eating and to identify targets for intervention., (Copyright © 2015 by the American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.)

Children with autism spectrum disorders often exhibit co-occurring sensory processing problems and receive interventions that target self-regulation. In current practice, sensory interventions apply different theoretic constructs, focus on different goals, use a variety of sensory modalities, and involve markedly disparate procedures. Previous reviews examined the effects of sensory interventions without acknowledging these inconsistencies. This systematic review examined the research evidence (2000-2012) of two forms of sensory interventions, sensory integration therapy and sensory-based intervention, for children with autism spectrum disorders and concurrent sensory processing problems. A total of 19 studies were reviewed: 5 examined the effects of sensory integration therapy and 14 sensory-based intervention. The studies defined sensory integration therapies as clinic-based interventions that use sensory-rich, child-directed activities to improve a child's adaptive responses to sensory experiences. Two randomized controlled trials found positive effects for sensory integration therapy on child performance using Goal Attainment Scaling (effect sizes ranging from .72 to 1.62); other studies (Levels III-IV) found positive effects on reducing behaviors linked to sensory problems. Sensory-based interventions are characterized as classroom-based interventions that use single-sensory strategies, for example, weighted vests or therapy balls, to influence a child's state of arousal. Few positive effects were found in sensory-based intervention studies. Studies of sensory-based interventions suggest that they may not be effective; however, they did not follow recommended protocols or target sensory processing problems. Although small randomized controlled trials resulted in positive effects for sensory integration therapies, additional rigorous trials using manualized protocols for sensory integration therapy are needed to evaluate effects for children with autism spectrum disorders and sensory processing problems., (© The Author(s) 2014.)