BMJ open · 2026
Digital health technologies for supporting home-based rehabilitation and management of children with cerebral palsy: a scoping review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Amponsah Samuel Kofi, Ansu-Mensah Monica, Osei Ernest, Danquah Frederick Inkum, Kuupiel Desmond
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This review aims to map and summarise evidence on digital health technologies (DHTs) for home-based rehabilitation in children with cerebral palsy (CP), including technology types, usage, outcomes, adoption barriers and evidence gaps.
DESIGN: This scoping review follows the Arksey and O'Malley framework, incorporates updates from Levac et al and is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews.
DATA SOURCES: 10 electronic databases were searched from inception, with individual database searches last updated between 17 September 2025 and 6 June 2026, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PEDro, OTseeker, IEEE Xplore and ACM Digital Library.
ELIGIBILITY: Peer-reviewed primary studies involving children under 18 with CP receiving DHTs for home-based rehabilitation were included. Studies in clinical settings or not published in English were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data with a third reviewer resolving disagreements. Quantitative results were summarised with basic statistics; qualitative results were analysed using thematic analysis per Joanna Briggs Institute methods. The review did not compare the effectiveness of different technologies.
RESULTS: 52 studies were included covering eight technology categories. Telerehabilitation/telehealth and virtual reality/exergaming were most common. Outcomes covered six domains, with upper limb motor function most frequently assessed. The main facilitators were gamification, cost-effectiveness and caregiver capacity building; the main barriers were access and equipment constraints, methodological limitations and connectivity issues. Five evidence gaps were identified: small sample sizes, short follow-up periods, limited representation of low- and middle-income countries, inconsistent outcome measures and a lack of real-world validation.
CONCLUSIONS: Randomised controlled trials, standardised outcome sets and scalable, culturally appropriate digital health solutions are needed, especially for low- and middle-income countries. Future reviews should consider including specialist databases.
DESIGN: This scoping review follows the Arksey and O'Malley framework, incorporates updates from Levac et al and is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews.
DATA SOURCES: 10 electronic databases were searched from inception, with individual database searches last updated between 17 September 2025 and 6 June 2026, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PEDro, OTseeker, IEEE Xplore and ACM Digital Library.
ELIGIBILITY: Peer-reviewed primary studies involving children under 18 with CP receiving DHTs for home-based rehabilitation were included. Studies in clinical settings or not published in English were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data with a third reviewer resolving disagreements. Quantitative results were summarised with basic statistics; qualitative results were analysed using thematic analysis per Joanna Briggs Institute methods. The review did not compare the effectiveness of different technologies.
RESULTS: 52 studies were included covering eight technology categories. Telerehabilitation/telehealth and virtual reality/exergaming were most common. Outcomes covered six domains, with upper limb motor function most frequently assessed. The main facilitators were gamification, cost-effectiveness and caregiver capacity building; the main barriers were access and equipment constraints, methodological limitations and connectivity issues. Five evidence gaps were identified: small sample sizes, short follow-up periods, limited representation of low- and middle-income countries, inconsistent outcome measures and a lack of real-world validation.
CONCLUSIONS: Randomised controlled trials, standardised outcome sets and scalable, culturally appropriate digital health solutions are needed, especially for low- and middle-income countries. Future reviews should consider including specialist databases.