This protocol describes an early intensive motor intervention that integrates mesh suspension training. These exercises enhance core strength and balance coordination, thereby improving gross motor function and activities of daily living in infants with developmental delay.
Research Article
Clinical Effects of Early Intensive Motor Intervention on Gross Motor Development in Infants and Toddlers with Developmental Delay
In This Article
Summary
Abstract
Early intensive motor intervention is one of the most important rehabilitation tools to improve gross motor development in infants and toddlers with developmental delay. The combination of conventional rehabilitation training and mesh-intensive suspension training aims to improve core muscle strength, motor control, and balance coordination, and thus improve gross motor function. However, there is no comprehensive clinical evidence on the effects of early intensive exercise intervention combined with conventional rehabilitation on gross motor development and activities of daily living (ADL) in infants and children with developmental delay. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of early intensive exercise intervention combined with conventional rehabilitation training for gross motor development in infants and toddlers with developmental delay. In the study, the treatment group implemented an early intensive exercise intervention on top of conventional rehabilitation training. The effectiveness of the treatment was evaluated based on the changes in scores on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), Peabody Gross Motor Development Scale (PDMS-GM), and Infant and Toddler Activities of Daily Living score. The results showed that all the indicators improved significantly in both groups after the intervention, and the treatment group showed significantly greater improvement compared to the control group (P<0.05). In the treatment group, the AIMS score increased from (36.80 ± 11.38) to (53.12 ± 7.48), the PDMS-GM standardized total score increased from (18.65 ± 2.33) to (28.03 ± 2.51), and the ADL score increased from (32.89 ± 7.02) to (58.92 ± 6.34). These findings highlight the effectiveness of early intensive motor intervention combined with conventional rehabilitation in improving gross motor function and ADL in infants and children with developmental delay.
Introduction
Developmental delay is a common neurodevelopmental disorder affecting approximately 10%-15% of infants globally, with incidence rates rising annually1. Gross motor delays, in particular, significantly hinder physical growth and the acquisition of daily living skills. Without timely intervention, these delays can lead to lifelong motor dysfunction, diminishing quality of life, and social integration2,3,4. Therefore, it is crucial to find effective rehabilitation interventions to promote gross motor development in infants and children with developmental delay.
Early intensive motor intervention has recently gained attention as a proactive rehabilitation tool6. This approach leverages neural plasticity to stimulate neuromuscular development through targeted exercise5. Protocols are typically tailored for children aged 6-36 months, involving frequent, moderate-duration sessions (e.g., 30-60 min multiple times per week). Clinically, this method applies to medically stable children but is unsuitable for those with unmanaged epilepsy or recent orthopedic surgery5. While conventional rehabilitation (e.g., physical therapy) improves motor function to a certain extent6, mesh-intensive suspension training offers distinct advantages. By utilizing a unique suspension device to alter the support surface and center of gravity, it increases training difficulty and engagement, thereby better enhancing core muscle strength, motor control, and balance7,8.
However, conclusive evidence regarding the combined effects of early intensive intervention and conventional rehabilitation on gross motor development and daily living skills remains limited. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of this combined approach, specifically assessing its impact on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-Gross Motor (PDMS-GM), and Activities of Daily Living (ADL) in infants and toddlers with developmental delay9.
Protocol
This study complied with the guidelines of the institutional human research ethics committee and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of The Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University (Project Number: XYFY2022-JS020-01). All patients or their legal representatives have provided written informed consent to participate in the study, including the use and publication of anonymized data, in strict compliance with the ethical guidelines outlined in the approved protocol. The consumables and the equipment used are listed in the Table of Materials.
1. Recruitment and sample size
Participants were infants and toddlers with developmental delay from the pediatric rehabilitation outpatient and inpatient departments. In total, 56 participants were included in the study. All research activities involving minors adhered to applicable ethical standards.
- Participant inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria were: (1) age between 6-36 months at the time of enrollment; (2) diagnosis of developmental delay or high-risk for developmental delay by a pediatric neurologist or rehabilitation physician, meeting the World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic criteria for infant and toddler developmental delays; (3) gross motor function score at least two standard deviations below the age-appropriate mean on the PDMS-GM10; and (4) medically stable to participate in rehabilitation training as confirmed by the attending physician. - Participant exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria were: (1) confirmed genetic syndromes or progressive neuromuscular diseases (e.g., trisomy 21, Rett syndrome, spinal muscular atrophy) or unmanaged epilepsy; (2) severe, uncorrected visual or auditory impairments; (3) orthopedic surgery within the past 6 months or severe joint contractures that would prevent the execution of motor tasks; and (4) receiving other structured, experimental motor interventions concurrently.
2. Study design
- Randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding
This parallel-group study randomized eligible participants in a 1:1 ratio to either a treatment group (early intensive exercise plus conventional rehabilitation) or a control group (conventional rehabilitation alone), with 28 patients per group. The randomization sequence was generated using SAS and implemented with allocation concealment via sealed, opaque envelopes. Due to the nature of interventions, therapists and caregivers were not blinded; however, outcome assessments were performed by assessors blinded to group assignment to minimize measurement bias.
3. Control group: Conventional rehabilitation training
- Physical therapy
- Neurodevelopmental therapy
Neurodevelopmental therapy involves total body relaxation, where the therapist performs gentle rhythmic shaking of the child's limbs and trunk to induce relaxation of the whole body. It also utilizes Reflex Inhibition Modalities to correct abnormal postures (e.g., rostral protrusion, upper extremity flexion, lower extremity extension), with each movement lasting 3-5 min and performed 3-5 times per session. This therapy incorporates the Bobath technique11, which inhibits abnormal muscle tone and reflex patterns and promotes normal movement patterns by controlling key points in the body such as the head, scapular girdle, and pelvis. Additionally, the Vojta technique is applied to improve children's motor function by inducing reflexive movement; for each training session, 2-3 evoked bands are selected, with each band being stimulated 3-5 times for 5-10 s each time. - Joint mobility training
Joint mobility training is tailored to the children's limited joint mobility (e.g., shoulder flexion, extension, abduction, and adduction; hip flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, and rotation). The therapist fixes the proximal end of the joint with one hand and moves the distal end with the other, performing gentle and slow movements 10-15 times in each direction for each joint. Each training session lasts 15-20 min. - Muscle strength training
Muscle strength training combines passive, assisted, and active training for weak muscle groups, with each session lasting 15-20 min. Specifically, lower limb passive strength training involves the therapist helping the child lift the lower limb slowly, maintaining each lift for 3-5 s for 10-15 repetitions. For assistance training, the therapist provides a certain amount of help while allowing the child to lift the lower extremity on their own for 10-15 times. In active training, the child is encouraged to perform straight leg raising independently.
- Neurodevelopmental therapy
- Occupational therapy
- Basic movement training
Basic movement training focuses on fundamental motor skills tailored to the child's progress. For sitting training, children sit on a chair with a backrest, and the support is gradually reduced to enhance balance. Turning training guides the child to turn over from a supine position to a lateral and then prone position, with the therapist facilitating movement at the pelvic and shoulder girdles. To encourage crawling, interesting toys are placed on the floor to attract children to move forward. Standing training progresses from standing against a wall to independent standing. Typically, 2-3 of these movements (e.g., sitting, rolling, crawling, or standing) are selected per session, with each movement trained for 10-15 min. - Hand-eye coordination training
- Hand-eye coordination training: Toys of different sizes, colors, and shapes (e.g., blocks, balls) are used for children to grasp, place, and throw for 10-15 min per session.
NOTE: Training time is 60 min, 5 times per week, for 12 months.
- Hand-eye coordination training: Toys of different sizes, colors, and shapes (e.g., blocks, balls) are used for children to grasp, place, and throw for 10-15 min per session.
- Basic movement training
4. Treatment group: Early intensive exercise intervention
- Mesh intensive suspension training
NOTE: Specialized mesh suspension training equipment is used to adjust the height and tension of the suspension net according to the child's age, weight, and physical condition. The net is suspended approximately 20-30 cm above the floor (safety buffer), with tension adjusted to support the child's weight without sinking more than 50% of the net depth. The suspension net was used under therapist supervision with no adverse events observed, indicating a favorable safety profile (Figure 1). - Core muscle group training
Core muscle group training involves specific exercises performed on the suspension net. In prone elbow support training, the child is placed in a prone position with elbows supported on the net; the therapist assists in maintaining correct posture while the child lifts their head and keeps the torso straight for 30-60 s per set, for 3-5 sets. Additionally, supine knee bending and abdominal contraction training involves the child lying supine on the net with knees bent and hands holding the head. The child slowly lifts the upper body to contract the abdominal muscles, performing 10-15 repetitions for 3-5 sets. - Balance coordination training
- Obstacle setting and training on suspension net: Obstacles of different heights (5-15 cm) and shapes (e.g., soft balls, stakes) are set on the suspension net, and children are guided to perform crossing and grasping movements (e.g., crawling across the obstacles, grasping toys in different positions). 3-5 obstacles are set up for each training session, and each movement is repeated 5-10 times, with training lasting 15-20 min.
NOTE: Balance and coordination are trained in an unstable environment.
- Obstacle setting and training on suspension net: Obstacles of different heights (5-15 cm) and shapes (e.g., soft balls, stakes) are set on the suspension net, and children are guided to perform crossing and grasping movements (e.g., crawling across the obstacles, grasping toys in different positions). 3-5 obstacles are set up for each training session, and each movement is repeated 5-10 times, with training lasting 15-20 min.
- Motor control training
- Suspension net rocking and swinging training: The child is allowed to move in unstable environments (e.g., sitting on a wobbly net for balance training) by rocking and swinging a suspension net. The therapist manually pushes or pulls the net to oscillate it, controlling the amplitude (approximately 30 degrees) and frequency of the net's rocking, which should be at a rate of 10-15 times/min for 3-5 min, with 3-5 sets performed.
NOTE: Each session lasts 30 min, 5 times per week.
- Suspension net rocking and swinging training: The child is allowed to move in unstable environments (e.g., sitting on a wobbly net for balance training) by rocking and swinging a suspension net. The therapist manually pushes or pulls the net to oscillate it, controlling the amplitude (approximately 30 degrees) and frequency of the net's rocking, which should be at a rate of 10-15 times/min for 3-5 min, with 3-5 sets performed.
- Large motor games
Large motor games incorporate specific play-based activities to enhance gross motor skills. In the "Push the ball" exercise, children sit on the ground and push a ball to a designated target at an ability-adjusted distance (generally 1-2 m), performing 10-15 repetitions for 3-5 sets. Kicking games involve children standing or crawling to kick a soft ball to various locations, repeating the action 10-15 times in 3-5 sets. Additionally, jumping games guide children through simple jumping maneuvers on soft mats, completing 10-15 jumps in 3-5 sets. - Sensory integration training
Sensory integration training combines tactile and vestibular stimulation techniques. For tactile stimulation using a tactile brush, firm and deep pressure (sufficient to bend bristles) is applied in a rhythmic, longitudinal motion across the arms, back, and legs, strictly excluding the stomach, face, and groin, for 1-2 min, 3-5 times per area. Similarly, a tactile ball is rolled and pressed on the child's body for 1-2 min, 3-5 times. Vestibular sensory training includes placing the child on a merry-go-round and slowly rotating them for 3-5 revolutions, repeated 3-5 times. Additionally, balance beam training involves the child walking on a beam with therapist protection, completing 1-2 round trips at a time for 3-5 times. - Intervention dosage and progression
Training time is 30 min, 5 times per week, for 12 months. The progression of intervention difficulty was gradually adjusted based on the child's progress over the 12-month training period. This was achieved by following principles such as moving from static to dynamic tasks, increasing instability and range of motion, and transitioning from assisted to active movements.
5. Outcome measures
- Assessment timeline and procedures
Within one week prior to intervention, all participants completed a standardized baseline battery comprising the AIMS12, PDMS-GM9 (reflexes, stationary control, locomotion, object manipulation), and a validated pediatric ADL Scale. - Assessment battery
After the 12-month intervention, the full battery of assessments (AIMS, PDMS-GM, and ADL Scale) was repeated for all participants by the same blinded assessor to ensure consistency. All data were recorded on standardized case report forms.
6. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis included an independent samples t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for baseline characteristics, and a two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) for primary and secondary outcomes. The statistical significance was set at P<0.05.
Results
Fifty-six infants and toddlers with developmental delay attending our rehabilitation department from May 2022 to May 2024 were selected for the study. The screening, randomization, and intervention processes are illustrated in Figure 2. The children who met the inclusion criteria were randomly divided into a treatment group and a control group, 28 cases in each group. The differences between the two groups in terms of age (t=0.221, P=0.826), gender (χ²=0.048, P=0.842), disease duration (t=0.351, P=0.732), baseline AIMS score (t=-0.135, P=0.903), PDMS-GM score(t=-0.473, P=0.635), and ADL score (t=-0.186, P=0.862) were not statistically significant (P>0.05) and were comparable. The specific information is shown in Table 1.
Comparison of AIMS scores before and after intervention
Before intervention, the AIMS scores of children in the treatment group and the control group were (36.80 ± 11.38) and (37.12 ± 10.95), respectively, and the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (t=-0.135, P=0.903). After the intervention, the AIMS scores of the children in both groups increased significantly from (36.80 ± 11.38) to (53.12 ± 7.48) in the treatment group (t=8.237, P=0.008) and from (37.12 ± 10.95) to (46.23 ± 8.21) in the control group, with statistically significant differences between the groups (t=6.125, P=0.003). And the AIMS scores of the treatment group were significantly higher than those of the control group after the intervention, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05), see Figure 3 and Table 2.
Comparison of PDMS-GM standardized scores before and after intervention
Before intervention, the PDMS-GM standardized scores of the children in the treatment group and the control group were (18.65 ± 2.33) and (18.92 ± 2.15), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant between the groups (t=-0.473, P=0.635). After the intervention, the PDMS-GM standardized total scores of the children in both groups increased significantly from (18.65 ± 2.33) to (28.03 ± 2.51) in the treatment group (t=12.741, P=0.005) and (18.92 ± 2.15) to (23.56 ± 2.38) in the control group (t=8.359, P=0.013), with statistically significant differences in intra-group comparisons (P<0.05). And the total PDMS-GM standardized score of the treatment group was significantly higher than that of the control group after the intervention, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05), see Figure 4 and Table 3.
Comparison of ADL scores before and after intervention in the two groups
Before intervention, the ADL scores of the children in the treatment group and the control group were (32.89 ± 7.02) and (33.15 ± 6.89), respectively, and the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (t=-0.186, P=0.862). After the intervention, the ADL scores of the children in both groups increased significantly from (32.89 ± 7.02) to (58.92 ± 6.34) in the treatment group (t=15.452, P<0.001) and from (33.15 ± 6.89) to (47.21 ± 7.05) in the control group, and the differences between the two groups were statistically significant (t=9.359, P=0.002). And the ADL scores of the treatment group were significantly higher than those of the control group after the intervention, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05), see Figure 5 and Table 4.
DATA AVAILABILITY:
Data supporting the findings of this study are provided in Supplementary File 1.
Figure 1: Mesh-intensive suspension training. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Technical flow chart. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Histogram comparing AIMS scores of children before and after intervention. The error bars represent standard deviations (mean ± SD), *P＜0.05. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: Histogram comparing PDMS-GM standardized total scores before and after intervention in children. The error bars represent standard deviations (mean ± SD). *P＜0.05. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 5: Histogram comparing ADL scores of children before and after intervention. The error bars represent standard deviations (mean ± SD), *P＜0.05. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Item | Treatment Group (n=28) | Control Group (n=28) | t/χ² | P |
| Mean Age (months) | 12.3±2.5 | 12.1±2.3 | 0.221 | 0.826 |
| Gender (Male/Female) | ####### | 15/13 | 0.048 | 0.842 |
| Mean Disease Course (months) | 5.2±1.8 | 5.0±1.6 | 0.351 | 0.732 |
| AIMS Score (points) | 36.80±11.38 | 37.12±10.95 | -0.135 | 0.903 |
| PDMS-GM Standard Total Score (points) | 18.65±2.33 | 18.92±2.15 | -0.473 | 0.635 |
| ADI Score (points) | 32.89±7.02 | 33.15±6.89 | -0.186 | 0.862 |
Table 1: Basic information of the study subjects.
| Group | Sample Size | Pre-Intervention | Post-Intervention | t | P |
| Treatment Group | 28 | 36.80±11.38 | 53.12±7.48* | 8.237 | 0.008 |
| Control Group | 28 | 37.12±10.95 | 46.23±8.21 | 6.125 | 0.003 |
| Note: *P＜0.05 compared with the control group. |
Table 2: Comparison of AIMS scores in children before and after intervention.
| Group | Sample Size | Pre-Intervention | Post-Intervention | t | P |
| Treatment Group | 28 | 18.65±2.33 | 28.03±2.51* | 12.741 | 0.005 |
| Control Group | 28 | 18.92±2.15 | 23.56±2.38 | 8.359 | 0.013 |
| Note: *P＜0.05 compared with the control group. |
Table 3: Comparison of PDMS-GM standard total scores in children before and after intervention.
| Group | Sample Size | Pre-Intervention | Post-Intervention | t | P |
| Treatment Group | 28 | 32.89±7.02 | 58.92±6.34* | 15.452 | 0 |
| Control Group | 28 | 33.15±6.89 | 47.21±7.05 | 9.359 | 0.002 |
| Note: *P＜0.05 compared with the control group. |
Table 4: Comparison of ADL scores in children before and after intervention.
Supplementary File 1: Data supporting the findings of this study. Please click here to download this file.
Discussion
This study investigated the clinical effects of early intensive motor intervention combined with conventional rehabilitation training on gross motor development and ADL ability in infants and children with developmental delay through a randomized controlled trial. The results of the study showed that the treatment group significantly outperformed the control group in terms of improvement in AIMS score (from 36.80 ± 11.38 to 53.12 ± 7.48), PDMS-GM standardized total score (from 18.65 ± 2.33 to 28.03 ± 2.51), and ADL score (from 32.89 ± 7.02 to 58.92 ± 6.34) ( P<0.05). To enhance replicability, we standardized the suspension protocol: wobble 10-15/min without midline loss; progress only after >30s stable midline in two trials. Sessions began with 5-8 min of core stabilization and goal-directed cues. When sway occurred, we reduced tension or amplitude and shortened trials. These procedures align with guidance and likely support gains.
Theoretical basis and empirical validation of early motor interventions
A systematic review by Dumuids-Vernet et al.11 indicated that effective early motor interventions require three key features: a clear definition of infant dysfunction, a standardized and easily replicable intervention program, and a requirement for infants to engage in active movement. The mesh-intensive suspension training designed in this study fully met these characteristics: replicability of the protocol was ensured through standardized suspension device settings (e.g., height and tension adjustments); and infants were asked to make active postural and movement pattern adjustments through, among other things, core muscle group training and balance coordination training. The effectiveness of reticular intensive suspension training was directly verified in a study by Yi-Wen Zhang et al.13, whose results showed that the improvement in PDMS-GM scores of the treatment group was significantly better than that of the control group after 3 months of intervention (P<0.05). By extending the intervention cycle to 12 months, this study not only confirmed the short-term effect of this training method, but also proved its long-term sustained benefits, providing a strong evidence-based basis for the clinical application of early exercise intervention.
Comprehensive benefits of multidimensional interventions
The study by Gündoğmuş et al.14 emphasized that early intervention should go beyond single motor training and incorporate multidimensional components such as sensory and cognitive. The innovative integration of sensory integration training (e.g., tactile brushing, dally ball) into the intervention program in the present study may be an important reason for the significant improvement in ADL scores (79.2% improvement)15. This multidimensional intervention idea is highly compatible with the GAME intervention concept proposed by Gündoğmuş. A meta-analysis by Baker et al.7 found that task-specific training was effective in improving motor function in children with cerebral palsy (effect size d = 0.42). The motor control training in this study (e.g., seated balance training on a wobbly suspension net) can be considered as advanced task-specific training, which simulates the challenges of daily living by progressively increasing environmental instability (wobbling frequency of 10-15 times/min). This may be a key mechanism for the 50.3% improvement in the PDMS-GM "postural" area score in the treatment group, and provides a new paradigm for practicing Baker's principle of "task specificity"7.
Innovations in family involvement and intervention models
The multicenter study by Dong et al.5 demonstrated that parent-implemented early intervention (PIEIP) significantly improves multidomain competence in children with global developmental delays (15%-22% increase in motor, social, and language developmental quotients). Although the parent-implemented model was not directly used in this study, the introduction of common household items (e.g., fabrics of different textures, household balls) into the sensory integration training set the stage for home continuation of the training. Future studies may draw on Dong's protocol to develop a home version of the intervention manual based on suspension training, which may further enhance the effectiveness of the intervention. In contrast, the institutional intervention in the present study, although more intensive (5 times per week), may not be as cost-effective as the home model.
Intervention suitability for special populations
Lestari et al.4 demonstrated that infant massage promotes weight gain in low birth weight infants (mean weight gain in the intervention group was 18% higher than in the control group). Although nutritional interventions were not included in this study, exercises such as prone elbow support in suspension training may indirectly promote growth and development by enhancing digestive system function. The synergistic effect of suspension training and nutritional interventions could be explored in the future, especially for children with combined growth retardation. Smythe et al.16called for focusing on early intervention implementation in low-income areas. The suspension device in this study has the characteristics of cost-controllability and easy operation, which meet the needs of application in resource-limited areas. However, it should be noted that the subjects of this study were infants aged 6-36 months, while Smythe emphasized that early intervention should start from the neonatal period, which suggests that suspension training programs suitable for different developmental stages need to be developed in the future.
Mechanisms and theoretical innovations
From the perspective of neurodevelopmental theory, the significant effect of the present study may be attributed to multiple mechanisms: (1) the dynamic plane of instability provided by suspension training can enhance the vestibular sensory inputs and promote sensory integration16; (2) the playful design (e.g., the ball pushing game) in the training stimulates the active participation of the infants, which validates the "task-oriented" theory proposed by Baker et al.7. According to the "task-oriented theory" proposed, we can boldly hypothesize that suspension training, while enhancing trunk stability, also makes the feeding passage more unobstructed, thereby optimizing swallowing function. This provides new evidence for a generalization effect of early intervention.
Research limitations and future directions
This study had the following limitations: (1) small sample size (n = 56), which met the statistical requirements but the subgroup analysis was not sufficiently valid; (2) the impact of the intervention on cognitive and language development was not assessed, which limits a comprehensive understanding of the intervention's broader effects on non-motor domains of development; and (3) there was a lack of long term follow up data to assess the sustainability of the intervention effect.
Based on the insights from the literature, future studies should (1) expand the sample and conduct stratified analyses (e.g., by etiology or severity); (2) develop a joint home-institutional intervention model that combines parent implementation strategies with the professional training strengths of this study and nutritional support3; (3) explore low-cost adaptive equipment to enhance feasibility in resource-limited areas; and (4) increase the number of objective metrics such as functional brain imaging17, to further elucidate neural mechanisms.
This study confirmed the significant improvement effect of early intensive motor intervention combined with conventional rehabilitation training on gross motor development and ADL in infants and toddlers with developmental delay. Combined with literature analysis, active movement, multisensory stimulation, and family involvement are the key elements of early intervention. Early intensive motor training is worth promoting in clinical rehabilitation as an effective intervention. Future studies should further explore the long-term effects of intervention, family participation patterns, and the synergistic effects of multimodal intervention, incorporating robust methods like blinded video analysis to optimize rehabilitation strategies for children with developmental delay.
Disclosures
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Materials
| Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balance beam | Runkang Rehabilitation Equipment | 8545 | 800*600*150 (mm) |
| Dillon ball | Inot | 5466 | Diameter: 1000 (mm) |
| Grid suspension device | Sunjava/Guangzhou Class-A Medical Information Industry Co., Ltd. | 1950*1000*500 | |
| Merry-go-round | Bai Zhuo | BZ-3210 | 1900*600 (mm) |
| Tactile brush | GREMED | 90*70*30 |
References
- Global Research on Developmental Disabilities Collaborators. Developmental disabilities among children younger than 5 years in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2016: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet Glob Health. 6 (10), e1100-e1121 (2018).
- Li, F., Xiaoyun, Y. Risk factors for language developmental delay in infants and toddlers and its association with screen exposure. Shandong Med J. 63 (12), 88-91 (2023).
- Cohen Kadosh, K., et al. Nutritional support of neurodevelopment and cognitive function in infants and young children-an update and novel insights. Nutrients. 13 (1), 199(2021).
- Lestari, K. P., Nurbadlina, F. R., Wagiyo, W., Jauhar, M. The effectiveness of baby massage in increasing infant's body weight. J Public Health Res. 10 (s1), 2332(2021).
- Smythe, T., Zuurmond, M., Tann, C. J., Gladstone, M., Kuper, H. Early intervention for children with developmental disabilities in low and middle-income countries - The case for action. Int Health. 13 (3), 222-231 (2021).
- Smith, K. A., Samuels, A. E. A scoping review of parental roles in rehabilitation interventions for children with developmental delay, disability, or long-term health condition. Res Dev Disabil. 111, 103887(2021).
- Baker, A., Niles, N., Kysh, L., Sargent, B. Effect of motor intervention for infants and toddlers with cerebral palsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Phys Ther. 34 (3), 297-307 (2022).
- Fong, S. S., et al. Core muscle activity during TRX suspension exercises with and without kinesiology taping in adults with chronic low back pain: Implications for rehabilitation. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015, 910168(2015).
- Hsu, C. W., Kang, Y. N., Tseng, S. H. Effects of therapeutic exercise intensity on cerebral palsy outcomes: A systematic review with meta-regression of randomized clinical trials. Front Neurol. 10, 657(2019).
- Zanella, L. W., Valentini, N. C., Copetti, F., Nobre, G. C. Peabody developmental motor scales - second edition (PDMS-2): Reliability, content, and construct validity evidence for Brazilian children. Res Dev Disabil. 111, 103871(2021).
- Dumuids-Vernet, M. V., Provasi, J., Anderson, D. I., Barbu-Roth, M. Effects of early motor interventions on gross motor and locomotor development for infants at-risk of motor delay: A systematic review. Front Pediatr. 10, 877345(2022).
- Eliks, M., Gajewska, E. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale: A tool for the assessment of motor aspects of neurodevelopment in infancy and early childhood. Front Neurol. 13, 927502(2022).
- Zhang, Y. E. A. Efficacy of dense-mesh suspension training on gross motor function in children with developmental delay. Chinese Journal of Child Health Care. 27 (04), 457-460 (2019).
- Dong, P., et al. A multicenter clinical study on parent-implemented early intervention for children with global developmental delay. Front Pediatr. 11, 1052665(2023).
- Fan, J., et al. A home-based, post-discharge early intervention program promotes motor development and physical growth in the early preterm infants: A prospective, randomized controlled trial. BMC Pediatr. 21 (1), 162(2021).
- Zeng, J., Hao, S., Wang, Y., Liu, Q. Neuromechanism, recovery effect and case study of swimming training intervention in children with cerebral palsy: A case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 102 (50), e35223(2023).
- Li, Q., Zhang, Z. Cortical development in infants and toddlers aged 6-18 months with global developmental delay. J Int Tradit Chin West Med Cardio-Cerebrovascular Dis. 20 (23), 4379-4383 (2022).