Outcomes and standardized tools in telehealth physical therapy for children with cerebral palsy: A scoping review using the ICF framework

TL;DR

This review explores outcomes and assessment tools used in telehealth physical therapy for children with cerebral palsy, focusing on how they align with health and disability domains.

Contribution

The study is the first to systematically map outcomes and tools in telehealth physical therapy for cerebral palsy using the ICF framework.

Findings

Most outcomes focused on activity domains, with fewer on body structure/function and participation.

In-person assessments were most common, with only two studies using telehealth exclusively for tools.

Thirty standardized tools were identified, with the Assisting Hand Assessment and Gross Motor Function Measure being most used.

Abstract

To identify the outcomes and standardized tools used to measure changes following telehealth‐delivered physical therapy interventions in children and young people with cerebral palsy, within the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains, and to describe how these tools were administered.

This scoping review followed the steps of the JBI and identified studies on telehealth‐delivered physical therapy interventions in children and young people up to 20 years old using standardized assessment tools. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, Lilacs, and grey literature, with no date or language restrictions.

Fourteen studies (625 participants, age range 6 months–20 years, all levels of the Gross Motor Function Classification System) met inclusion criteria. Outcomes were primarily in the activity domain (59.3%), followed by body structure and function (29.6%) and participation (22.2%) domains. Thirty standardized tools were used; the most frequent were the Assisting Hand Assessment (n = 5) and Gross Motor Function Measure (n = 3). Most standardized tools were applied in‐person (68.2%), while others used mixed methods (telehealth and in‐person: 18.2%) or did not specify the mode of administration (6.8%). Only two studies administered all tools by telehealth.

The outcomes and standardized tools identified in this review target the activity domain, reflecting parental priorities. In‐person assessments remain the preferred modality for conducting standardized evaluations. Further research is necessary to investigate the feasibility and measurement properties of using standardized tools by telehealth.

Plain language summary: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dmcn.70070

Figures