Search

Objective: To compare efficacy of a web-based multimodal training programme, ‘Move it to improve it’ (MitiiTM), to usual care on gross motor capacity and performance for children with an acquired brain injury. Design: Randomized waitlist controlled trial. Setting: Home environment. Participants: A total of 60 independently ambulant children (30 in each group), minimum 12 months post-acquired brain injury were recruited and randomly allocated to receive either 20 weeks of MitiiTM training (30 minutes/day, six days/week, total 60 hours) immediately, or waitlisted (usual care control group) for 20 weeks. A total of 58 children completed baseline assessments (32 males; age 11 years 11 months ± 2 years 6 months; Gross Motor Function Classification System equivalent I = 29, II = 29). Intervention: The MitiiTM program comprised of gross motor, upper limb and visual perception/cognitive activities. Main measures: The primary outcome was 30-second, repetition maximum functional strength tests for the lower limb (sit-to-stand, step-ups, half-kneel to stand). Secondary outcomes were the 6-minute walk test, High-level Mobility Assessment Tool, Timed Up and Go Test and habitual physical activity as captured by four-day accelerometry. Results: Groups were equivalent at baseline on demographic and clinical measures. The MitiiTM group demonstrated significantly greater improvements on combined score of functional strength tests (mean difference 10.19 repetitions; 95% confidence interval, 3.26–17.11; p = 0.006) compared with the control group. There were no other between-group differences on secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Although the MitiiTM programme demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the functional strength tests of the lower limb, results did not exceed the minimum detectable change and cannot be considered clinically relevant for children with an acquired brain injury. Clinical Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registration Number, ANZCTR12613000403730. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To examine the reproducibility in measurement of physical activity performance using the ActiGraph®GT3X+ accelerometer in children aged 8–16 years with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI). Methods: Reproducibility of standardized tasks: Thirty-two children with ABI (12 years 1 month, SD = 2 years 4 months; 20 males; Gross Motor Function Classification System I = 17, II = 15) performed the following activities on 2 consecutive days while wearing an accelerometer and a heart rate monitor: quiet sitting, slow walking (SW), moderate walking (MW), fast walking (FW) and rapid stepping on/off a block (STEP). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. Performance variability: Fifty-one participants (12 years 1 month, SD = 2 years 5 months; 27 males; GMFCS I = 26, II = 25) wore an accelerometer for 4 days in the community and reliability coefficients were calculated using standardized 12-hour time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Results: Test–re-test reproducibility was excellent for all activities (SW, ICC = 0.90; MW, ICC = 0.83; FW, ICC = 0.91; STEP, ICC = 0.89). Three days of monitoring produced excellent variability estimates of MVPA (R= 0.78). Conclusion: Therapists can confidently use accelerometry as a reproducible measure of physical activity under standardized walking and stepping conditions, as well as in the community for children with ABI. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: To determine test–re-test reproducibility of the Timed Up & Go (TUG) test, 30-second repetition maximum (repmax) of functional exercises, 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) and High-level Mobility Assessment Tool (HiMAT) in children with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI). Secondarily, to assess the accuracy between hand-timed and video-timed scores for the TUG test and HiMAT. Methods: Thirty children at least 1 year post-ABI (mean age at assessment = 11 years 11 months, SD = 2 years 4 months; 14 males; Gross Motor Function Classification Scale I = 17, II = 13) were assessed twice. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement and minimum detectable change (MDC) were determined. The Bland-Altman method and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) were used to assess the agreement between hand and video-timed TUG test and HiMAT scores. Results: Test–re-test reproducibility was acceptable for the TUG test (ICC = 0.92; MDC = 1.2s); repmax of functional exercises (ICC = 0.84–0.98; MDC = 4–8 reps); 6MWT (ICC = 0.90; MDC = 69.38 m) and HiMAT (ICC = 0.98; MDC = 6). Comparison of hand and video scores for the TUG test and HiMAT demonstrated a mean difference of 0.23 (LOA = –0.3–0.7) and –0.07 (LOA = –1.99–1.85), respectively. Conclusions Test–re-test reproducibility of lower limb activity capacity measures in children with ABI are acceptable. The MDC scores provide a useful reference to interpret treatment effectiveness. Video timing was more accurate than hand-timing for the TUG test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]