Participation of the family in physical therapy treatment of children with cerebral palsy

Authors

  • Franciele Leiliane Sari Escola de Educação Especial 'Albert-Sabin'; Associação Norte Paranaense de Reabilitação
  • Sonia Silva Marcon Universidade Estadual de Maringá; NEPAAF

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19886

Keywords:

Physiotherapy, cerebral palsy, professional-family relationship

Abstract

This is a descriptive and exploratory study carried out with mothers of children aged five years or less, with diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy. It aims to investigate parents' participation in the process of children's rehabilitation and their expectation regarding the treatment. Data were collected in the month of October 2006 through semi-structured interviews conducted with 28 mothers of children enrolled in a rehabilitation school. The mothers, individually (39%) or together with the fathers (32%) or other family members, are responsible for the development of physiotherapy activities at home. These are performed on a daily basis (36%) or two to three times a week (39%), usually at night and using differentiated stimuli (96%). Most mothers (79%) stated they are able to conduct all the proposed activities, and the main difficulties are related to non-acceptance on the part of the child (54%) and lack of time (21%). The expectation is that the child becomes able to walk without support (46%) and that he/she has motor independence (25%). Although in varied degrees, most of the time the professionals can count on the family's help concerning the offer of stimuli to the children. The mothers who already had several orientation sessions feel more prepared to conduct the physiotherapy activities at home. This reveals the importance of the interaction with the family. The professional needs to explain to the family the importance of the exercises even when the prognostic is limited, because the child's evolution can be surprising and, besides, this is an opportunity to develop/strengthen the bond between the family and child.

References

Rotta NT. Paralisia Cerebral, novas perspectivas terapêuticas. J Ped. 2002; 78(supl.1):48-54.

Mancini MC, Fiúza PM, Rebelo JM, Magalhães LC, et al. Comparação do desempenho de atividades funcionais em crianças com desenvolvimento motor normal e crianças com paralisia cerebral. Arq Neuro-psiquiatr 2002; 60(2-B):446-452.

Schwartzman JS. Paralisia Cerebral. Arq. Bras Paralisia Cerebral 2004; 1(1):4-17.

Campos D, Santos DCC. Controle postural e motricidade apendicular nos primeiros anos de vida. Fisioterapia em Movimento. 2005;18(3):71-77.

Shepherd RB. Fisioterapia em Pediatria. 3ª ed. São Paulo: Santos, 1996.

Finnie NR. A importância da comunicação entre os pais e profissionais. In: Finnie NR (Org.). O manuseio em Casa da Criança com Paralisia Cerebral. 3ª ed. São Paulo: Manole, 2000, p.03-07.

Oliveira SL. Tratado de Metodologia Científica. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Pioneira,1999.

Moura EW de, Silva PAC. Fisioterapia: Aspectos clínicos e práticos da reabilitação. São Paulo: Artes Médicas, 2005.

Rotta NT. Aspectos da relação médico-paciente em neuropediatria. Neurobiol. 1983; 46(3):301-8.

Moura EW de, Silva PAC. Fisioterapia: Aspectos clínicos e práticos da reabilitação. In: Ozu MHU, Galvão MCS. Fisioterapia na paralisia cerebral, São Paulo: Artes Médicas, 2005, p. 27-46.

Voyer P, Roien C. Psicologia atual e desenvolvimento da criança. São Paulo: Manole, 1990.

Poresky RH, Henderson ML. Infant’s mental and motor development: effects of home environment, maternal attitudes, marital adjustment and socioeconomic status. Percept MotSkills 1982; 53:695-702.

Andraca I , Pino P, La Parra A, Marcela RF. Factores de riesgo para el desarrollopsicomotor en lactentes nascidos enoptimas condiciones biológicas. Rev Saúde Púb. 1998;32(2):134-47.

Levitt S. O Tratado da Paralisia Cerebrale do Retardo Motor. 3ª ed. São Paulo: Manole, 2001.

Bee H. A criança em desenvolvimento. In: Bee H. (Org). Desenvolvimento atípico. 9ªed. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2003.

Downloads

Published

2008-12-01

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 3 (2008)

Section

Original Research

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis