Standing frames for children with Cerebral Palsy_v1
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Standing frames as part of postural management for children with spastcity. What is the acceptability of a trial to determine the efficacy of standing frames?
IRAS ID
182263
Contact name
Jill Kisler
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
BH137926, BH - university ref.; 82916961, ISRCTN
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 9 months, 31 days
Research summary
1:400 UK children has cerebral palsy (CP). Children with CP may be unable to walk and have associated learning or communication difficulties. CP is caused by damage to the brain, before birth or in the first year of life. Although the brain damage does not change, effects on the body such as pain, limb and joint deformity do. Physiotherapy treatment may include using a Standing Frame but there is much variation in UK practice.
There is little evidence to support the proposed benefits of standing frames which include improvement in limb movement, bone strength, bladder and bowel control, breathing, participation in activities; and prevention of hip dislocation. Frames also have disadvantages: they use space, take time and may be uncomfortable and expensive.To assess the usefulness of standing frames, a trial is needed where children are assigned by chance to using a frame or not. However, not using a frame may not be acceptable to some children, parents and healthcare providers who think that they are helpful. This study aims to prepare for a feasible and acceptable trial to assess the effectiveness of standing frames for children with CP by:
Step 1: Survey 1 to understand current practice in the UK. How are frames used? How long do children stand in them? Are there difficulties with using frames?
Step 2: Discussions using focus groups with parents and healthcare staff and interviews with children. What do users think about frames? Why are they useful? Are trials needed? What are the pros and cons of frame use? Would users be prepared to stop using a frame, or be allocated by chance to different frame use in a trial?
Step 3: Survey 2 will summarise findings from the first two steps and seek opinion on potential trial designs.REC name
East Midlands - Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
15/EM/0495
Date of REC Opinion
9 Dec 2015
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion