PTOtherJournal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID2019

Physical activity levels of children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe intellectual disability.

Marieke Wouters, Heleen M Evenhuis, Thessa I M Hilgenkamp

PMID 29993175

WHAT IT FOUND

Only 47% of children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe intellectual disability met the 60-minute daily moderate-to-vigorous activity recommendation using intellectual disability-specific thresholds.

Lower motor development was linked to lower activity. Motor skill support may be a practical focus.

Key findings

01Of 68 analysed children and adolescents, 47% met the recommendation of at least 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day using intellectual disability-specific cut-points.

02Mean daily activity was 6,677 steps and 92 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, while 78% of wear time was sedentary.

03When motor development was added to the model, sex and Down syndrome were no longer significant predictors, but motor development was associated with all three physical activity measures.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

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 analysis included 68 of 130 children, and 11 participants did not wear the accelerometer at all. Only children who could walk independently and attended specialized day program centres were studied, so the results do not apply to children who cannot walk independently or attend other settings. Swimming and other water-based activities were not captured by the accelerometer, and parent event sheets were rarely completed, so activity volume may be underestimated. The intellectual disability-specific cut-points were developed for children aged 8 to 11 years, but participants were aged 2 to 18 years, so classification accuracy outside that age range is uncertain. The study was cross-sectional, so it cannot show that poor motor development causes low physical activity. The regression models explained only a small part of the variation, and the authors used many predictors, so other factors likely influenced activity levels. The 47% meeting recommendation depends on the cut-points used; the authors reported that using typical child cut-points gave 4%.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the 47% meeting the recommendation as reassurance. More than half did not meet it, and the result depends on the intellectual disability-specific cut-points used.

Read it on PubMed →