Eddy Lucy H, Wood Megan L, Shire Katy A, Bingham Daniel D, Bonnick Emma, Creaser Amy, Mon-Williams Mark, Hill Liam J B
School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Child Care Health Dev. 2019 Nov;45(6):773-790. doi: 10.1111/cch.12712. Epub 2019 Aug 16.
Research suggests that children identified with impaired motor skills can respond well to intensive therapeutic interventions delivered via occupational and physical therapy services. There is, however, a need to explore alternative approaches to delivering interventions outside traditional referral-based clinic settings because limited resources mean such health services often struggle to meet demand. This review sets out to systematically assess the evidence for and against school-based interventions targeted at improving the motor skills of children aged between 3 and 12 years old.
Five electronic databases were searched systematically (AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane, Medline, and PsycINFO) for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2012 and July 2018. Studies were eligible if they implemented a school-based motor skill intervention with a randomized or case-controlled trial design that objectively measured motor skills as an outcome, which were not specific to an athletic or sporting skill. Participants had to be aged between 3 and 12 years old and free from neurological disorders known to affect muscle function. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies encompassed interventions targeted at training: fundamental movement skills, handwriting, fine, and global motor skills. The majority of these studies reported beneficial impact on motor function specifically, but some interventions also assessed subsequent impacts on activity and participation (but not well-being). A number of the studies had methodological shortcomings that means these results need to be interpreted with caution.
Schools appear to be an effective setting for motor skill interventions, but the extent of benefit likely depends on the type of intervention. Moreover, confirmation is needed as to whether benefits extend beyond motor function into everyday activities, participation, and well-being. Future research should include follow-up measures to assess the longer term efficacy of school-based interventions.
研究表明，被确定为运动技能受损的儿童对通过职业治疗和物理治疗服务提供的强化治疗干预反应良好。然而，有必要探索在传统的基于转诊的诊所环境之外提供干预的替代方法，因为资源有限意味着此类医疗服务往往难以满足需求。本综述旨在系统评估支持和反对以改善3至12岁儿童运动技能为目标的校本干预措施的证据。
系统检索了五个电子数据库（AMED、CINAHL、Cochrane、Medline和PsycINFO），以查找2012年1月至2018年7月发表的同行评审文章。如果研究采用基于学校的运动技能干预措施，采用随机或病例对照试验设计，客观地将运动技能作为结果进行测量，且这些技能并非特定于运动或体育技能，则这些研究符合条件。参与者必须年龄在3至12岁之间，且没有已知会影响肌肉功能的神经疾病。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。
23项研究符合纳入标准。这些研究包括针对以下方面的干预措施：基本运动技能、书写、精细和整体运动技能。这些研究中的大多数特别报告了对运动功能的有益影响，但一些干预措施也评估了对活动和参与的后续影响（但未评估对幸福感的影响）。许多研究存在方法学上的缺陷，这意味着这些结果需要谨慎解释。
学校似乎是进行运动技能干预的有效场所，但受益程度可能取决于干预类型。此外，需要确认益处是否不仅限于运动功能，还能延伸到日常活动、参与和幸福感。未来的研究应包括随访措施，以评估校本干预措施更长期的疗效。
