Table 3 Systematic review: Individual study characteristics (n = 9)

Polatajko et al. 1995 [10]

Randomised control trial

Source: children referred to the Home Care School Program Middlesex, UK

Age: 7 to 13 years.

Diagnosis: DCD

N = 74

Gender (male/female): not reported

Group 1

Kinaesthetic training vs no treatment

Group 2

“Traditional treatment” vs no treatment

Intervention

Group 1 (n =26)

Two to three 20 min sessions per week for a maximum of 12 sessions over 5 weeks or until the child could perform the task to criteria.

Group 2 (n = 24)

Two to three 45 min sessions per week for a total of 24 sessions over 9 weeks involving

sensory integrative, gross motor, fine motor and perceptual motor interventions

Control (n = 26)

No treatment

Primary

Gross motor skills (TOMI; Ball skills; static and dynamic balance

Secondary

None reported

Post-test measures

Group 1: 13 weeks

Group 2: 13 weeks

Group 3: 9 weeks

after the end of treatment

Group 1 Process- orientated

Group 2

Traditional

6

Ledebt et al. 2005 [44]

Randomised control trial

Source: medical centre of Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

Age: 5 to 11 years

Diagnosis: CP GMFCS1 - spastic hemiplegia

N = 10

Gender: not reported.

Balance training (to improve gait) vs no training

Intervention (n = 5)

18 sessions total; three 30 min sessions per week for 6 weeks; static and dynamic balance tasks included.

Control (n = 5)

No training

Primary

Balance (Centre of Pressure force platform measures during quiet and dynamic stance balance)

Gait (step length symmetry in gait)

Secondary

None reported

Post-test measures

Time 1: 6–7 weeks post baseline

Time 2: no later than 10 weeks post time 1

Task-orientated

3

Peens et al. 2008 [43]

Randomised control trial

Source: nine different primary schools in the Potchesfstroom district in North-west Province of South Africa

Age: 7 to 9 years

Diagnosis: DCD

N = 58

Gender (male/female): not reported

Group 1

“Motor based” intervention vs no intervention

Group 2

Psychological intervention vs no intervention

Group 3

Psycho-motor intervention vs no intervention

Intervention

Group 1 (n = 20)

Two 30 min sessions per week for 8 weeks involving task specific kinaesthetic and sensory integration interventions

Group 2 (n = 10)

Weekly 45 mins intervention for 8 weeks involving self-concept enhancement

Group 3 (n = 11)

Three sessions per week for 8 weeks involving two 30 min “motor” based sessions and one 45 min psychological session (as described above)

Control (n = 17)

No intervention

Primary

Gross motor skills (TOMI; Ball skills; static and dynamic balance)

Secondary

Child self-concept (TSCS –CF)

Anxiety (CAS)

Post-test measures

All groups at 8 and 16 weeks

Group 1 Process- orientated

Group 2

Psychological

Group 3

Process- orientated and psychological

4

Tsai et al.

2009 [45]

Randomised control trial

Source: mainstream classrooms in southern Taiwan

Age: 9 to 10 years

Diagnosis: DCD

N = 27

Gender (male/female): not reported

Table tennis vs regular class room activities and no training

Intervention (n = 13):

Three 50 min training sessions per week over a 10 week period. Training intervention performed in sequence of increasing complexity.

Control (n =14):

No treatment

Primary

Gross motor skills (M-ABC; Ball skills and Static/dynamic balance categories)

Secondary

None reported

Post-test measures

At 10 weeks

Task-orientated

3

Hillier et al. 2010 [46]

Randomised control trial

Source: Minimal Motor Disorder Unit of Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Adelaide, Australia

Age: 5 to 8 years

Diagnosis: DCD

N = 13

Gender (male/female): not reported

Aquatic therapy vs waiting list

Intervention (n = 6)

Weekly 30 min sessions over a 6–8 week period (maximum of 6 sessions) in 1:1 format involving task specific training of ball skills, standing balance and walking/running.

Control (n = 6)

Waiting list.

Primary

Gross motor skills (M-ABC; Ball skills and Static/dynamic balance categories)

Secondary

Child’s self-concept (PSPCSA)

Parent’s perception of changes in their child’s participation (0–5 Likert scale)

Post-test measures

End of the 6th session ie 6–8 weeks

Traditional

7

Chrysagis et al. 2012 [47]

Randomised control trial

Source: special school for students with physical disabilities, Athens, Greece

Age: 15 to 18 years

Diagnosis: CP GMFCS1 - spastic diplegia

N = 4

Gender (male/female): 0/4

Treadmill training without body weight vs individual gross motor activities (conventional physiotherapy).

Intervention (n = 2)

Three 30 min sessions per week over 12 weeks. Each session included a 10 min warm-up and 5 min cool-down

Control (n = 2)

Three 45 min sessions per week over 12 weeks. Each session consisted of three 15 min sets of mat activities, balance and gait training and functional gross motor activities (i.e. usual care)

Primary

Gross motor function (GMFM) Gait (self-selected walkingspeed)

Secondary

None reported

Post-test measures

End of 12 weeks

Task-orientated

8

Fong et al.

2012 [48]

Randomised control trial

Source: local child assessment centres and hospitals, Hong Kong

Age: 6 to 9 years.

Diagnosis: DCD

N = 44

Gender (male/female): 35/9

Intervention group includes Asperger syndrome (n = 2), Autistic spectrum disorder (n = 1)

Control group includes Asperger syndrome (n = 3)

Taekwondo vs no training

Intervention (n = 21)

Weekly 1 h session of training for 12 consecutive weeks (including daily home exercise program)

Control (n = 23)

No training

Primary

Static balance (Unilateral Stance Test using non-dominant leg)

Sensory organisation of balance (Sensory Organisation Test)

Secondary

Compliance to daily home exercise program monitored by log book (based on activities from Taekwondo sessions)

Post-test measures

End of 12 weeks

Task-orientated

6

Fong et al.

2013 [49]

Randomised control trial

Source: local child assessment centres and hospitals, Hong Kong

Age: 6 to 9 years.

Diagnosis: DCD

N = 44

Gender (male/female): 35/9

Intervention group includes Asperger syndrome (n = 2), Autistic spectrum disorder (n = 1)

Control group includes Asperger syndrome (n = 3)

Taekwondo vs no training

Intervention (n = 21) Weekly 1 h session of training for 12 consecutive weeks (including daily home exercise program)

Control (n = 23)

No training

Primary

Static balance (Unilateral Stance Test using dominant leg)

Reactive balance (Motor Control Test)

Muscle strength (isokinetic concentric knee flexion and extension)

Secondary

Compliance to daily home exercise program monitored by log book (based on activities from Taekwondo sessions)

Post-test measures

End of 12 weeks

Task-orientated

6

Hammond et al.

2014 [50]

Randomised crossover controlled trial

Source: two primary schools in Mid-Sussex, UK

Age: 7 to 10 years

Diagnosis: DCD

N = 18

Gender (male/female): 14/4

Wii Fit vs usual care

Phase 1

Wii Fit vs usual care

Phase 2

Usual care vs Wii Fit

2.5 months between Phase 1 and 2

Intervention (n = 10)

Weekly 10 mins of supervised play 3 times over a 4 week period. Children could choose from 8 Wii – Fit games which focus on balance and coordination.

Control (n = 8)

Usual care: 1 h per week of school-run Jump Ahead intervention practicing “motor skills”

Primary

Gross motor skills (BOT-2 SF; bilateral-coordination, strength, balance, running speed and agility, upper limb co-ordination)

Secondary

Child satisfaction (CSQ)

Post-test measures

Phase 1: End of week 4

Phase 2: End of week 18

Task-orientated

5