ArticlePloS one2025
Monitoring physical behavior in pediatric physical therapy: A mixed methods feasibility study to evaluate a newly developed toolkit and training.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPediatric physical therapists (PPTs) aim to enhance active physical behavior but lack feasible accelerometry devices to assess and evaluate physical activity (PA). We developed an activity monitoring prototype toolkit (AM-p Toolkit) consisting of a wearable, a docking station, a digital tool for data analysis, and physical tools for communication with children and parents. A training for PPTs was also created. We aim to explore the feasibility of the AM-p Toolkit from the perspectives of PPTs, children, and parents and to assess if training improved PPTs' knowledge, skills, and confidence in using the Toolkit. PARTICIPANTS AND
methodsUsing an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, we collected data through questionnaires, individual interviews, and focus groups, guided by Bowen's dimensions of 'acceptability,' 'demand,' and 'practicality.' We included children with the ability to walk, their parents, and their PPTs. The training was evaluated by analyzing PPTs' knowledge, skills, and confidence using the AM-p Toolkit. Quantitative results were analyzed descriptively (mean [SD] and median [interquartile range] when appropriate and qualitative data were analyzed thematically.
resultsFifteen PPTs, 17 parents, and 20 children completed the study. PPTs rated overall satisfaction on a 10-point scale with the AM-p Toolkit at 6.3 (SD 1.2), and parents rated it 7.3 (SD 1.6). The following themes emerged for acceptability, demand, and practicality respectively: for acceptability: 1) expected added value, 2) quality and usability, and 3) design; for demand: 1) use and non-use, 2) further development, and 3) willingness for future use; and for practicality: 1) time constraints and 2) integration.
conclusionThe AM-p Toolkit shows promise in PPT, with generally positive acceptability among all end-users. PPTs see potential for certain groups of children who can benefit from the AM-p Toolkit. Practicality requires improvements in the web application and refinement of the strap. Training is important and can be strengthened by emphasizing the analysis of assessment results, clinical reasoning, and functional goal-setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.