Evaluation of the longer-term use of the David Hart Walker Orthosis by children with cerebral palsy: a 3-year prospective evaluation

References

• Fuhrer M J. Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001; 80: 528–535
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Ladak N, Schuller R, Naumann S, Wright V. Outcomes measurement of assistive technologies: an institutional case study. Assistive Technology 1996; 8: 110–120
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lenker J A, Scherer M J, Fuhrer M J, Jutai J W, DeRuyter F. Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assistive Technology 2005; 17: 7–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith R O. Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology 1996; 8: 71–81
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stratford P W. Who will decide the efficacy of physiotherapeutic interventions. Physiotherapy Canada 1999; 51: 235–238
   Google Scholar
• Farley R, Szadruski M, Findlay A, Douglas W, Hood M. The Arrow Walker for adults: design, evaluation and commercial development. Physiotherapy 1996; 82: 176–183
   Google Scholar
• Korpella R A, Koivikko M J. A regional survey of technical aids used by handicapped children at day care and at school. Disability and Rehabilitation 199; 14: 16–22
   Google Scholar
• McGrath P J, MacDonald B J, Nichols T A, Unruh A. Assistive devices: utilisation by children. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1985; 66: 430–432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudjonsdottir B, Mercer V S. Effects of a dynamic versus a static prone stander on bone mineral density and behaviour in four children with severe cerebral palsy. Pediatric Physical Therapy 2002; 14: 38–46
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mattson E, Andersson C. Oxygen cost, walking speed, and perceived exertion in children with cerebral palsy when walking with anterior and posterior walkers. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 1997; 39: 671–676
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levangie P K, Chimera M, Johnston M, Robinson R, Wobeskya L. The effects of posterior rolling walkers vs. the standard rolling walker on gait characteristics of children with spastic cerebral palsy. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics 1989; 4: 6–16
   Google Scholar
• Park E S, Park C I, Kim J Y. Comparison of anterior and posterior walkers with respect to gait parameters and energy expenditure of children with spastic cerebral palsy. Yonsei Medical Journal 2001; 42: 180–184
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levangie P K, Guihan M F, Meyer P, Stuhr K. Effects of altering handle position of a rolling walker on gait in children with cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy 1989; 69: 130–134
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent J, Woolham P J, Major R E, Stallard J. A rear support walking frame for severely disabled children with cerebral palsy: initial development. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2000; 24: 233–240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan L, Byers-Hinkley K, Ciccone C D. Anterior versus posterior walkers: a gait analysis study. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 1990; 32: 1044–1048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright F V, Belbin G, Slack M, Jutai J. An evaluation of the David Hart Walker Orthosis: a new assistive device for children with cerebral palsy. Physiotherapy Canada 1999; 51: 280–291
   Google Scholar
• Gibbins K E. Effects of the David Hart orthosis in severely affected cerebral palsy [thesis M.Phil]. University of Liverpool, LiverpoolUK 1994, Available from Harold Cohen Library, Liverpool University; 9426.GIB
   Google Scholar
• Palisano R, Rosenbaum P L, Walter S, Russell D, Wood E, Galuppi B. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 1997; 39: 214–223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell D, Rosenbaum P, Cadman D, Gowland C, Hardy S, Jarvis S. The Gross Motor Function Measure: A means to evaluate the effects of physical therapy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 1989; 31: 341–352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell D, Rosenbaum P L, Avery L, Lane M. Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66 and GMFM-88) user's manual. Cambridge University Press, London 2002
   Google Scholar
• Russell D J, Gorter J W. Assessing functional differences in gross motor skills in children with cerebral palsy who use an ambulatory aid or orthoses: can the GMFM-88 help?. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 2005; 47: 462–467
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright F V, Liu G, Milne F. Reliability of the measurement of time-distance parameters of gait: a comparison in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Physiotherapy Canada 1999; 51: 191–200
   Google Scholar
• Steinwender G, Saraph V, Cheiber S, Zwick E B, Uitz C, Hackl K. Intrasubject repeatability of gait analysis in normal and spastic children. Clinical Biomechanics 2000; 15: 134–139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick W, Wytch R, Cole G, Helms P. Is the objective assessment of cerebral palsy gait reproducible?. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics 1994; 14: 705–708
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGibbon N H, Andrade C K, Widener G, Cintas H L. Effect of an equine-movement therapy program on gait, energy expenditure, and motor function in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 1998; 40: 754–762
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haley S, Coster W, Ludlow L, Haltiwanger J, Andrellos P. Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. New England Medical Center Hospitals, Inc, Boston, MA 1992
   Google Scholar
• Berg M, Jahnsen R, Froslie K F, Hussain A. Reliability of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI). Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics 2004; 24: 61–77
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knox V, Usen Y. Clinical review of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2000; 63: 29–32
   Google Scholar
• Nichols D S, Case-Smith J. Reliability and validity of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Pediatric Physical Therapy 1996; 8: 15–24
   Google Scholar
• Wright F V, Boschen K. The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI): Results of a reliability study in cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 1994; 36: 37
   Google Scholar
• Wright F V, Boschen K. The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI): Results of a validity study in cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 1994; 36: 37
   Google Scholar
• Minitab Inc. Minitab statistical software. Minitab Inc, College Park, PA 2004
   Google Scholar
• QSR NUD*IST. QSR NUD*IST 4 introductory handbook. QSR Limited, Australia 1998
   Google Scholar
• Ketelaar M, Vermeer A, Hart H, Petegem-van Beed, Helders P JM. Effects of a functional therapy program on motor abilities of children with cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy 2001; 81: 1534–1545
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordmark E, Jarnlo G-B, Haaglund G. Comparison of the Gross Motor Function Measure and Paediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory in assessing motor function in children undergoing selective dorsal rhizotomy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 2000; 42: 245–252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palisano R, Tieman B L, Walter S D, et al. Effect of environmental setting on mobility methods of children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 2003; 45: 113–120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lepage C, Noreau L, Bernard P. Association between characteristics of locomotion and accomplishment of life habits in children with cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy 1998; 78: 458–469
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson C R, Figioni S F, Devocelle H A, Fifer-Moeller T M, Lockhart T L, Lockhart T A. From the field: effect of dynamic weightbearing on lower extremity bone mineral density in children with neuromuscular impairment. Physical Therapy 2000; 54: 13–18
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M J. Living in the state of stuck – How technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. Brookline Books, Cambridge 1993; 123–153
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability 2002; 14: 101–105
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability 2002; 14: 107–111
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J WFM, Scherer M J, DeRuyter F. Toward a taxonomy of assistive device outcomes. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2005; 84: 294–302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar