PTOTQualitativeDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2026

Clinical gait analysis use in management of children with cerebral palsy: Qualitative study.

Marie Lévesque-Jalbert, Katia Turcot, Marie Rousseau-Demers and 5 others

PMID 41721585

WHAT IT FOUND

Clinicians and caregivers found gait analysis valuable for validating clinical impressions and guiding complex decisions, but resource limitations, lack of standardized protocols, and interpretation barriers prevented consistent access and timely follow-up.

Key findings

01Healthcare professionals reported that gait analysis helps validate clinical impressions and explore alternatives when previous treatments were ineffective, particularly in complex cases.

02Caregivers felt reassured when decisions were based on gait analysis reports, but some experienced abandonment due to delays and insufficient follow-up.

03Limited staffing and funding caused delays and unmet clinical needs, with more limitations noted in centers without a laboratory coordinator.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study included a relatively small number of participants (23), which may limit the transferability of findings to other contexts. Results are heavily context-dependent, tied to the specific resource disparities and healthcare structures in Quebec. The researchers' professional backgrounds and familiarity with gait analysis may have influenced the interpretation of the data, despite efforts to minimize bias.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Réseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-Réadaptation and the MUSCO Initiative.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume that gait analysis directly improves patient outcomes based on this paper. The study reports perceptions and barriers to implementation, not clinical efficacy or changes in functional results.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →