Constraint-induced Movement Therapy and Self-regulation for Children With Cerebral Palsy

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
This study examines the effect of combining modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) and self-regulation (SR) in promoting upper limb function of children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy (CP) studying in a school-based setting.

Detailed Description
-----------------
Children diagnosed with hemiplegic CP are involved. A within-subject design is used with children acting as their own controls. The study is scheduled at three-week intervals. All children undergo conventional occupational therapy (OT) and modified constraint-induced movement therapy plus self-regulation (mCIMT + SR) program in a random order. Both programs last for three weeks. Each program is followed by a three-week no-treatment period to measure the carry-over effect. The OT program consists of training on unimanual and bimanual tasks for 1 to 2 hours a week with daily home exercise. The mCIMT + SR program involves restraint of the unaffected upper limb of children using a cotton sling for 6 hours per day for 15 days. A one-hour structured task practice with the use of SR is provided during each 6-hour restraint. The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, the Jebsen-Taylor Test of Hand Function, the Caregiver Functional Use Survey, a hand dynamometer, pinch gauge, and modified Ashworth scale are used for evaluation. All children are assessed for five times at 3-week interval: once before and twice after the conventional OT; and twice after the mCIMT + SR at 1 week and at 3 weeks. Before and after the three-week intervention, the children participate in event-related potentials (ERP) sessions with a choice reaction task. Event-related potentials (ERP) technique is used to capture the changes in neural mechanism after intervention.

Official Title
-----------------
Effectiveness of Modified Constraint-induced Movement Therapy and Self-regulation Learning for Children With Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy

Conditions
-----------------
Cerebral Palsy

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: mCIMT + SR
* Other: Control


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: children with diagnosis of hemiplegic CP, 6-18 years of age studying at local special school for students with physical handicap (PH), intelligence ranging from normal to mild grade mental retardation, the ability to extend the wrist at least 20° and the metacarpophalangeal joint 10° from full flexion, and no balance problems sufficient to compromise safety. Exclusion Criteria: any health problems that were not associated with CP, and severe muscle tone with modified Ashworth scale scored greater than 3.

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 6 Years
Maximum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Treatment
Allocation: Non-Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Single


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: mCIMT + SR<br>modified constraint-induced movement therapy plus self regulation | Other: mCIMT + SR<br>* Each participant wears a customized cotton sling on the unaffected arm for six hours everyday. Participant is engaged in fifteen unimanual tasks during the three-week training that provides them sufficient challenge and opportunities for repetition. SR is incorporated on the 1-hour structured practice by using video playback to help participants realize their own performance for better learning. Participant first performs a task with videotaping, then identifies steps with problems or difficulties by video playback of participant's performance. Secondly, participant is asked for possible solutions, prompting is given if needed. Lastly, participant performs the activity by adopting the suggested solutions with videotaping again to facilitate participant's evaluation of new performance.<br>|
| Active Comparator: Control<br>conventional occupational therapy | Other: Control<br>* A combination of training on functional and remedial activities on unimanual tasks and bimanual tasks that based primarily on neurodevelopmental approach are provided. The training aims at increasing control, strength and functional use of their affected arm and hand, and improving bimanual coordination in performing daily activities. Each participant receives 1 to 2 hours of training per week at school. Home exercise including both unimanual and bimanual tasks is prescribed to them as well.<br>* Other names: Conventional occupational therapy;|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Change in Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency | Subtest 5 ((upper-limb coordination) and subtext 8 (speed and dexterity), testing the upper limb function are used. Time frame: Assessment 1 (within two days before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (within two days after the three-week intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (two days after the three-week intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) | Assessment 1 (before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (after intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (after intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) (refer to description) | 
| Change in Jebsen-Taylor Test of Hand Funcion | It assesses hand function using seven unimanual tasks: writing, turning cards over, picking up small commonly encountered objects, simulated eating, stacking checker, and moving light and heavy cans. Time frame: Assessment 1 (within two days before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (within two days after the three-week intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (two days after the three-week intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) | Assessment 1 (before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (after intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (after intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) (refer to description) | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Change in Caregiver Functional Use Survey | It reviews caregivers' perceptions of how much and how well their child use the affected upper limb in the real-life situation. Time frame: Assessment 1 (within two days before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (within two days after the three-week intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (two days after the three-week intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) | Assessment 1 (before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (after intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (after intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) (refer to description) | 
| Change in Grip strength | It is measured using a Jamar hand dynamometer. Time frame: Assessment 1 (within two days before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (within two days after the three-week intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (two days after the three-week intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) | Assessment 1 (before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (after intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (after intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) (refer to description) | 
| Change in Pinch strength | It is measured using a pinch gauge. Time frame: Assessment 1 (within two days before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (within two days after the three-week intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (two days after the three-week intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) | Assessment 1 (before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (after intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (after intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) (refer to description) | 
| Change in Modified Ashworth scale | It assesses muscle tone at the shoulder, elbow and wrist. Time frame: Assessment 1 (within two days before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (within two days after the three-week intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (two days after the three-week intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) | Assessment 1 (before intervention 1); Assessment 2 (after intervention 1); Assessment 3 (3 weeks after no treatment period and before intervention 2); Assessment 4 (after intervention 2); Assessment 5 (3 weeks after no treatment) (refer to description) |