Exploring the Unmet Need for Technology to Promote Motor Ability in Children Younger Than 5 Years of Age: A Systematic Review
Objective: To (1) identify types of technology that promote motor ability in children younger than 5 years of age, (2) report on the type of support these devices provide, and (3) evaluate their potential for use in the community (outside of the laboratory or clinic). Data Sources: A literature sear...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2020-06-01
|
| Series: | Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590109520300161 |
| _version_ | 1818290558575050752 |
|---|---|
| author | Amanda J. Arnold, PhD Joshua L. Haworth, PhD Victor Olivares Moran, BS Ahmad Abulhasan, BS Noah Steinbuch, BS Elena Kokkoni, PhD |
| author_facet | Amanda J. Arnold, PhD Joshua L. Haworth, PhD Victor Olivares Moran, BS Ahmad Abulhasan, BS Noah Steinbuch, BS Elena Kokkoni, PhD |
| author_sort | Amanda J. Arnold, PhD |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective: To (1) identify types of technology that promote motor ability in children younger than 5 years of age, (2) report on the type of support these devices provide, and (3) evaluate their potential for use in the community (outside of the laboratory or clinic). Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed was conducted in February 2019 using specific terms, including child, rehabilitation, movement, and instrumentation. Study Selection: The search yielded 451 peer-reviewed articles, which were screened by multiple reviewers. Articles that described the use of devices for the purpose of motor rehabilitation and/or assistance (regardless of device type or body part targeted) in the age range of 0-5 years were eligible for inclusion. Data Extraction: In conformity with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, final stage data extraction consisted of full text readings where each article was reviewed twice by 3 independent reviewers. Data Synthesis: About half of the devices available (46%) for children younger than 5 years of age are orthotics and corrective casting devices. There are more facilitative (ie, power mobility devices) than inhibitive (ie, casting) technologies being used. Approximately 60% of the devices are designed for use by a single body part. Walking is the most common motor skill addressed. Although most of the devices were used to some degree outside of the laboratory or clinic, most of the devices available are considered investigative and are not available for commercial purchase. Conclusions: Many types of pediatric devices to assist movement exist, but the current scope of employed devices is limited. There is a need for developing technology that allows for, if not supports, high-dosage, early, and variable motor practice that can take place in community settings. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T02:30:05Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4dca3074dd9e43aea0d9c0e45474cb61 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2590-1095 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T02:30:05Z |
| publishDate | 2020-06-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation |
| spelling | doaj.art-4dca3074dd9e43aea0d9c0e45474cb612022-12-22T00:02:31ZengElsevierArchives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation2590-10952020-06-0122100051Exploring the Unmet Need for Technology to Promote Motor Ability in Children Younger Than 5 Years of Age: A Systematic ReviewAmanda J. Arnold, PhD0Joshua L. Haworth, PhD1Victor Olivares Moran, BS2Ahmad Abulhasan, BS3Noah Steinbuch, BS4Elena Kokkoni, PhD5Department of Bioengineering, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CaliforniaDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California; Department of Human Movement Science, Oakland University, Rochester, MichiganDepartment of Biology, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CaliforniaDepartment of Biology, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CaliforniaDepartment of Biology, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CaliforniaDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California; Corresponding author Elena Kokkoni, PhD, Department of Bioengineering, University of California Riverside, Bourns Hall A141, 900 University Ave, Riverside, CA 92521.Objective: To (1) identify types of technology that promote motor ability in children younger than 5 years of age, (2) report on the type of support these devices provide, and (3) evaluate their potential for use in the community (outside of the laboratory or clinic). Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed was conducted in February 2019 using specific terms, including child, rehabilitation, movement, and instrumentation. Study Selection: The search yielded 451 peer-reviewed articles, which were screened by multiple reviewers. Articles that described the use of devices for the purpose of motor rehabilitation and/or assistance (regardless of device type or body part targeted) in the age range of 0-5 years were eligible for inclusion. Data Extraction: In conformity with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, final stage data extraction consisted of full text readings where each article was reviewed twice by 3 independent reviewers. Data Synthesis: About half of the devices available (46%) for children younger than 5 years of age are orthotics and corrective casting devices. There are more facilitative (ie, power mobility devices) than inhibitive (ie, casting) technologies being used. Approximately 60% of the devices are designed for use by a single body part. Walking is the most common motor skill addressed. Although most of the devices were used to some degree outside of the laboratory or clinic, most of the devices available are considered investigative and are not available for commercial purchase. Conclusions: Many types of pediatric devices to assist movement exist, but the current scope of employed devices is limited. There is a need for developing technology that allows for, if not supports, high-dosage, early, and variable motor practice that can take place in community settings.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590109520300161ChildInfantMotor skillsRehabilitationTechnology |
| spellingShingle | Amanda J. Arnold, PhD Joshua L. Haworth, PhD Victor Olivares Moran, BS Ahmad Abulhasan, BS Noah Steinbuch, BS Elena Kokkoni, PhD Exploring the Unmet Need for Technology to Promote Motor Ability in Children Younger Than 5 Years of Age: A Systematic Review Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation Child Infant Motor skills Rehabilitation Technology |
| title | Exploring the Unmet Need for Technology to Promote Motor Ability in Children Younger Than 5 Years of Age: A Systematic Review |
| title_full | Exploring the Unmet Need for Technology to Promote Motor Ability in Children Younger Than 5 Years of Age: A Systematic Review |
| title_fullStr | Exploring the Unmet Need for Technology to Promote Motor Ability in Children Younger Than 5 Years of Age: A Systematic Review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Exploring the Unmet Need for Technology to Promote Motor Ability in Children Younger Than 5 Years of Age: A Systematic Review |
| title_short | Exploring the Unmet Need for Technology to Promote Motor Ability in Children Younger Than 5 Years of Age: A Systematic Review |
| title_sort | exploring the unmet need for technology to promote motor ability in children younger than 5 years of age a systematic review |
| topic | Child Infant Motor skills Rehabilitation Technology |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590109520300161 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT amandajarnoldphd exploringtheunmetneedfortechnologytopromotemotorabilityinchildrenyoungerthan5yearsofageasystematicreview AT joshualhaworthphd exploringtheunmetneedfortechnologytopromotemotorabilityinchildrenyoungerthan5yearsofageasystematicreview AT victorolivaresmoranbs exploringtheunmetneedfortechnologytopromotemotorabilityinchildrenyoungerthan5yearsofageasystematicreview AT ahmadabulhasanbs exploringtheunmetneedfortechnologytopromotemotorabilityinchildrenyoungerthan5yearsofageasystematicreview AT noahsteinbuchbs exploringtheunmetneedfortechnologytopromotemotorabilityinchildrenyoungerthan5yearsofageasystematicreview AT elenakokkoniphd exploringtheunmetneedfortechnologytopromotemotorabilityinchildrenyoungerthan5yearsofageasystematicreview |