Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35389365›Full record

ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2022

Programs Using Stimulation-Regulating Technologies to Promote Physical Activity in People With Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities: Scoping Review.

Giulio E Lancioni, Nirbhay N Singh, Mark O'Reilly, Jeff Sigafoos, Gloria Alberti, Lorenzo Desideri

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Challenges and opportunities in adolescent intellectual disability care and rehabilitation.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Giulio E LancioniDepartment of Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6515-5690
Nirbhay N SinghDepartment of Psychiatry and Health Behavior, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4418-4847
Mark O'ReillyDepartment of Special Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6433-3475
Jeff SigafoosSchool of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1239-759X
Gloria AlbertiLega F D'Oro Research Center, Osimo, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6355-2003
Lorenzo DesideriDepartment of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2091-2907

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with intellectual and multiple disabilities tend to engage in very low levels of physical activity.

objectiveThis review paper aims to provide a comprehensive picture of intervention programs using stimulation-regulating technologies to promote forms of physical activity in people with intellectual and multiple disabilities.

methodsFollowing the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist, a scoping review was conducted to identify and provide a synthesis of eligible studies published in English between 2010 and 2021. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ERIC, and CINAHL as well as by using Google Scholar and manual searches. Studies were included if they involved individuals with intellectual or multiple disabilities, used stimulation-regulating technology systems to help participants engage in physical activity, and reported data on the impact of the intervention.

resultsA total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies were divided into 2 groups based on whether they pursued the increase in physical activity through technology-aided delivery of brief periods of preferred stimulation contingent on specific responses or the use of video games (exergames) and related auditory and visual stimulation. Subsequently, a narrative synthesis of the studies was provided.

conclusionsThe evidence reported by the 2 groups of studies is encouraging. However, further research is needed to compare the overall applicability and impact of the intervention strategies proposed by these groups of studies.

Indexed as

exergamesintellectual disabilitiesmobile phonemultiple disabilitiesphysical activityresponse-contingent stimulationsensory impairmentstechnologyvideo games

Identifiers

PMID35389365
PMCPMC9031065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.