| Literature DB >> 32456241 |
Elisa Muñoz-Blanco1,2, Javier Merino-Andrés3,4, Beatriz Aguilar-Soto5, Yolanda Castillo García6, Marta Puente-Villalba7, Jorge Pérez-Corrales8,9, Javier Güeita-Rodríguez8,9.
Abstract
Cerebral palsy results in the progressive loss of motor functions, with a negative impact on daily activities and participation. Despite the well described benefits of aquatic therapy in children, little is known about the effects of the same in school settings. This study aimed to describe the experience of children and youth with cerebral palsy participating in an aquatic therapy program within a special education school considering their educational and therapeutic perspectives. A qualitative descriptive case study with embedded units was developed, comprising 27 participants. This study employed purposeful sampling to include children and youth with cerebral palsy from the Asociación Ayuda a la Paralisis Cerebral (APACE) special education school, together with their parents, the special education teachers, and health care professionals. Data were collected via non-participant observation, semi-structured and informal interviews, focus groups, and researcher field notes. A thematic analysis was conducted, revealing the following themes: (a) the connection with the environment; (b) postural improvements and mobility; (c) the opportunity to perform tasks; (d) learning and transfer. A motivating environment leads to physical, cognitive and social benefits, both at school and in the home. Aquatic therapy was viewed as a means for learning and participation. These findings may enhance understanding regarding the potential benefits of implementing multidisciplinary aquatic therapy programs in specialist school settings.Entities:
Keywords: cerebral palsy; physical therapy modalities; qualitative research; special education
Year: 2020 PMID: 32456241 PMCID: PMC7277651 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103690
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Sociodemographic data of participants
| Participants | Sociodemographic Data |
|---|---|
| Students | Participants: 14 (5 women) |
| Mean age (years): 10.90 (SD +/− 3.77) | |
| School attendance (years): 5.90 (SD +/− 3.91) | |
| Number of years receiving aquatic therapy: 4.45 (SD +/− 3.20) | |
| % GMFCS: II (28.5%), III (14.2%), IV (14.2%), V (42.8%) | |
| Parents | Participants: 8 (7 women) |
| Mean age: 46 (SD +/− 6) | |
| Health care professionals | Participants: 3 (3 women) |
| Mean age: 39 (SD +/− 3.5) | |
| Years of experience in CP: 12 (SD +/− 4.96) | |
| Education professionals | Participants: 2 (2 women) |
| Mean age: 36.5 (SD +/− 0.5) | |
| Years of experience in CP: 14.5 (SD +/− 2.5) |
Data collection process
| Participants | Data Collection Tool | Number of Participants | Setting | Time | Study Phase |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children context | |||||
| Children | Participant observation | 11 students | APACE School (Classrooms, hall, playground, dining room, speech therapy room, pool, dressing room, occupational therapy room, bathroom, dancing activity → hall, weaving workshop → classroom, physiotherapy room, corridors, social skills workshop with psychotherapist → classroom, storyteller activity → classroom) | 59 h (3540 min) | During period of intervention (October/June) |
| Minimum 40 min before aquatic intervention + minimum 40 min after aquatic intervention | |||||
| Semi-structured interviews | 3 students | APACE Classroom | 210 min | During intervention, after school | |
| (range: 63 to 77 min) | |||||
| Parents | Focus group | 8 parents | APACE School dining room | 73 min | During intervention, after school |
| Therapy context | Semi-structured interviews | 3 health professionals | Assistant → APACE Classroom | 249 min | During intervention, during breaks after school |
| Speech therapist → APACE Speech therapy room | |||||
| Physiotherapist → APACE Physiotherapy room | (range: 77 to 92 min) | ||||
| Informal interviews | 2 health professionals | APACE school | 40 min | During period of intervention | |
| Educational context | Semi-structured interviews | 2 teachers | Director → APACE Classroom | 123 min | During intervention, after school |
| Teacher → APACE Classroom | (range: 55 to 68 min) | ||||
| Informal interviews | 1 teacher | APACE school | 22 min | During period of intervention |
Figure 1Thematic analysis process.
Trustworthiness criteria
| Criteria | Techniques Performed and Application Procedures |
|---|---|
| Credibility | Investigator triangulation: each interview was analyzed by two researchers. Thereafter, team meetings were performed in which the analyses were compared and themes were identified. |
| Triangulation of data collection methods: interviews were conducted, and researcher field notes were kept. | |
| Participant validation: this consisted of asking the participants to confirm the data obtained during the data collection and analysis stages. | |
| Transferability | In-depth descriptions of the study were performed, providing details of the characteristics of researchers, participants, contexts, sampling strategies, and the data collection and analysis procedures. |
| Dependability | Audit by an external researcher: an external researcher assessed the study research protocol, focusing on aspects concerning the methods applied and study design. |
| Confirmability | Investigator triangulation, participant triangulation, data collection triangulation. |
| Researcher reflexivity was encouraged via the completion of reflexive reports and by describing the rationale for the study. |