Power2Walk: The Impact of Functional Power Training on Participation and Activity in Children With Cerebral Palsy.

Children with cerebral palsy (CP) experience limitations in walking ability due to functional motor impairments caused by neurodevelopmental damage during fetal or early child development that may result in spasticity, dyskinesia, or ataxia. Due to these motor impairments, children with CP struggle to keep up with typically developing peers when participating in physical and/or social activities. Yet, participation is a key factor in child development, mainly because it is instrumental in enhancing mental well-being through building friendships, developing a personal identity, optimizing physical growth, and increasing motor control. Earlier studies concluded that children with CP are indeed at an elevated risk for reduced physical activity and participation. Consequently, the development of these children may be hampered. Therefore, targeted interventions that increase physical activity and participation are essential for supporting the general development of children with CP. A large number of treatments have been developed for children with CP, ranging from pharmacological agents that manage tone to invasive surgical interventions. Whilst many of these treatments effectively improve motor control, very few address the underlying fatigue that is typically seen in these children, which causes a vicious cycle of reduced physical fitness, early onset of fatigue, and decreased physical activity levels. This decline in physical fitness is ultimately detrimental to participation, and therefore a wide variety of exercise-related treatment options are being explored to improve motor control, physical fitness, and participation.

Recently, functional power training (FPT) emerged as a potentially successful supplementary treatment method to improve participation in children with CP. This type of strength training combines high velocity movements with progressive resistance to mimic and train the demands of playing activities like playground running and sprinting in games and sports. Indeed, a previous double-baseline study indicated that FPT improves physical fitness, muscle strength, activity, and participation in ambulatory children with CP. This is unlike progressive resistance training (PRT), which increases muscle strength but not walking ability, anaerobic capacity, and ultimately participation. This discrepancy is likely explained by the functional nature of FPT, which specifically trains activities of daily living and not only muscle strength. Moreover, power training may be more effective than strength training as power training incorporates high intensity, explosive-like contractions that are required in daily living situations. Consequently, FPT is more effective than PRT in improving walking ability, thereby better supporting participation in ambulatory children with CP. Nevertheless, high-level scientific evidence underpinning the efficacy of FPT on walking ability, aerobic endurance, anaerobic capacity, and participation in ambulant children with CP is still lacking. Furthermore, it remains unclear what predictive factors best identify which children with CP benefit most from FPT. Additionally, it remains unknown whether the potential benefits of FPT on walking ability, aerobic endurance, anaerobic capacity, and participation in children with CP are maintained when FPT is discontinued.

• Mobility Questionnaire 28 (MobQues28) [Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.]
• Gait Outcomes Assessment List (GOAL) [Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.]
• Harter's Self-Perception Profile for Children [Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.]
• Physical activity (accelerometer) [Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks]
• Sleep (accelerometer) [Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks]
• Body composition (bioelectrical impedance analysis) [Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.]
• Walking speed (1-minute walk test) [Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.]
• Aerobic endurance (shuttle run test) [Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.]
• Anaerobic capacity (muscle power sprint test). [Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.]
• Dietary intake (3-day food record) [Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks).]
• Process evaluation [Time frame: Through study completion. An average of 2 years.]
• Age [Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks)]