Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33078704›Full record

ArticleHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

Powered mobility interventions for very young children with mobility limitations to aid participation and positive development: the EMPoWER evidence synthesis.

Nathan Bray, Niina Kolehmainen, Jennifer McAnuff, Louise Tanner, Lorna Tuersley, Fiona Beyer, Aimee Grayston, Dor Wilson, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Jane Noyes and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06586125 (The Impact of Virtual Reality on Powered Mobility in Patients With Neuromotor Disabilities), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06586125 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

The Impact of Virtual Reality on Powered Mobility in Patients With Neuromotor Disabilities: a Feasibility Study

TypeobservationalSponsorAzienda Usl di BolognaRan2023 to 2025Enrolled10ConditionsCerebral Palsy Infantile, Neuromuscular Diseases in ChildrenArmsPowered Mobility Training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Parents' and Therapists' Satisfaction with Four Early Childhood Power Mobility Devices.Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Evaluating a Therapeutic Powered Mobility Camp for Children with Severe Cerebral Palsy.Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie · 2021
    Article
  15. Understanding the Global Challenges to Accessing Appropriate Wheelchairs: Position Paper.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nathan BraySchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7646-5435
Niina KolehmainenPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9229-9913
Jennifer McAnuffPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1636-0049
Louise TannerPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2340-8677
Lorna TuersleyCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1780-258X
Fiona BeyerPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6396-3467
Aimee GraystonChildren's Services, Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6820-7727
Dor WilsonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3034-001X
Rhiannon Tudor EdwardsSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4748-5730
Jane NoyesSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4238-5984
Dawn CraigPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5808-0096
Newcastle University · GBBangor University · GBLeeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health 17/70/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne-fifth of all disabled children have mobility limitations. Early provision of powered mobility for very young children (aged < 5 years) is hypothesised to trigger positive developmental changes. However, the optimum age at which to introduce powered mobility is unknown.

objectiveThe aim of this project was to synthesise existing evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of powered mobility for very young children, compared with the more common practice of powered mobility provision from the age of 5 years. REVIEW

methodsThe study was planned as a mixed-methods evidence synthesis and economic modelling study. First, evidence relating to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility and anticipated outcomes of paediatric powered mobility interventions was reviewed. A convergent mixed-methods evidence synthesis was undertaken using framework synthesis, and a separate qualitative evidence synthesis was undertaken using thematic synthesis. The two syntheses were subsequently compared and contrasted to develop a logic model for evaluating the outcomes of powered mobility interventions for children. Because there were insufficient published data, it was not possible to develop a robust economic model. Instead, a budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the cost of increased powered mobility provision for very young children, using cost data from publicly available sources. DATA SOURCES: A range of bibliographic databases [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence (OTseeker), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), PsycINFO, Science Citation Index (SCI; Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), Social Sciences Citation Index™ (SSCI; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH; Clarivate Analytics), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database and OpenGrey] was systematically searched and the included studies were quality appraised. Searches were carried out in June 2018 and updated in October 2019. The date ranges searched covered from 1946 to September 2019.

resultsIn total, 89 studies were included in the review. Only two randomised controlled trials were identified. The overall quality of the evidence was low. No conclusive evidence was found about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of powered mobility in children aged either < 5 or ≥ 5 years. However, strong support was found that powered mobility interventions have a positive impact on children's movement and mobility, and moderate support was found for the impact on children's participation, play and social interactions and on the safety outcome of accidents and pain. 'Fit' between the child, the equipment and the environment was found to be important, as were the outcomes related to a child's independence, freedom and self-expression. The evidence supported two distinct conceptualisations of the primary powered mobility outcome, movement and mobility: the former is 'movement for movement's sake' and the latter destination-focused mobility. Powered mobility should be focused on 'movement for movement's sake' in the first instance. From the budget impact analysis, it was estimated that, annually, the NHS spends £1.89M on the provision of powered mobility for very young children, which is < 2% of total wheelchair service expenditure. LIMITATIONS: The original research question could not be answered because there was a lack of appropriately powered published research.

conclusionsEarly powered mobility is likely to have multiple benefits for very young children, despite the lack of robust evidence to demonstrate this. Age is not the key factor; instead, the focus should be on providing developmentally appropriate interventions and focusing on 'movement for movement's sake'. FUTURE WORK: Future research should focus on developing, implementing, evaluating and comparing different approaches to early powered mobility. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018096449.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Mobility LimitationSelf-Help DevicesChildChild, PreschoolChildren with DisabilitiesCost-Benefit AnalysisElectric Power SuppliesFemaleHumansMaleModels, EconomicParentsPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeState MedicineTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCHILDDISABILITYMOVEMENTPOWERED MOBILITYWHEELCHAIR

Identifiers

PMID33078704
PMCPMC7681349
OpenAlexW3092727947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.