The Early Movers Clinician's Guide: Co-Designing a Resource for the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines in Paediatric Occupational Therapy.
Leah G Taylor, Sophie M Phillips, Denis Tzvetkov and 2 others
PMID 41980876WHAT IT FOUND
OTs and caregivers said the 24-hour movement guidelines' time targets felt judgemental and one-size-fits-all, and its sitting and restraint language ignored children who need those supports.
Their co-designed guide drops the numbers, leads with family goals, and comes in clinician and caregiver parts.
Key findings
01OTs and caregivers said the guidelines' prescriptive, one-size-fits-all messaging did not fit children with disabilities, and that time-based targets could make families feel judged or guilty; they wanted movement conversations built around each family's own goals.
02Participants objected to the guidelines' language about limiting sitting and avoiding restraints, saying supported sitting is how some children are able to take part.
03Six OTs tested the draft guide in practice with one client each; most (83%) reported it took 15 to 19 minutes, one reported 5 to 9 minutes, and they felt positive about how usable it was.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat 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.
What it does not show
Only 20 people took part and they were recruited by word of mouth and through professional networks, so this is what this group thought, not what all paediatric OTs or families would say. Most participants were white women and they came from 6 of Canada's 13 provinces and territories, so other perspectives, including those of junior clinicians, may be missing. Feedback came from group workshops, where people may have said what they thought others wanted to hear; the authors offered anonymous written feedback between workshops to reduce this. No child outcomes were measured. The study reports what OTs and caregivers thought of a draft resource, not whether using it changes children's movement, sleep or screen time. The same authors designed the resource and analysed the workshop transcripts, although a second coder who had not been involved in the project helped check the coding. The draft was tested in practice by six OTs, each with one client, so the hands-on testing is very limited.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funding came from several non-commercial sources: doctoral and postdoctoral awards from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Graduate Scholarship, plus the Children's Health Research Institute and Mitacs. Western University and the North American Society for Paediatric Exercise Medicine paid for participant compensation and knowledge translation. The Public Health Agency of Canada funded translation of the guide into French, and the Canadian Disability Participation Project funded accessibility services.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the positive feedback as evidence that this guide changes children's movement, sleep or screen time. The study collected what OTs and caregivers thought of a draft resource across five workshops, no child outcomes were measured, and only six OTs tried it in practice with one client each.
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 →