MegaPower training
OtherSee arm/group descriptions
NCT Number: NCT06640894
Rationale: 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. Due to these motor impairments, children with CP struggle to keep up with typically developing peers when participating in physical and/or social activities. Consequently, the development of these children may be hampered. Recently, functional power training (FPT) emerged as a potentially successful supplementary treatment method to improve participation in children with CP. It is understood that FPT is more effective than progressive resistance training in improving walking ability and endurance, and thereby better supports participation in ambulatory children with CP. Nevertheless, high-level scientific evidence underpinning the efficacy of FPT on these parameters in ambulant children with CP is still lacking. The investigators hypothesize that FPT effectively helps accomplish patient-tailored participation and activity goals in ambulant children with CP.
Objective: This study aims to investigate whether twelve weeks of FPT (MegaPower training) effectively accomplish patient-tailored participation and activity goals in ambulant children with CP, when compared to their usual care. Additionally, the goal is to investigate i) whether MegaPower training improves walking ability, aerobic endurance, and anaerobic capacity; ii) what factors best identify which ambulant children with CP benefit most from twelve weeks of MegaPower training; iii) to what extend the MegaPower training was implemented as intended in the participating study centers?, and iv) whether the effects of the MegaPower training are maintained after 12 and 24 weeks of follow-up.
Study design: A single-blind randomized controlled parallel trial with a 24 week follow-up. During the follow-up, the control group will also receive MegaPower training.
Study population: Ambulant children with cerebral palsy or a related non-progressive disorder between the ages of 4 - 12.
Intervention: One group will receive twelve weeks of FPT (MegaPower training), whilst the other group will receive twelve weeks of usual care (control group).
Main study parameters/endpoints: Accomplishment of patient-tailored participation and activity goals, measured through Goal Attainment Scaling.
Interested in participating?
Request Info4 year–12 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Treant Zorggroep, Emmen, Drenthe, Netherlands
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.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
See arm/group descriptions
See arm/group descriptions
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.
Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a method used to measure the achievement of individual goals in a structured and quantitative manner. It is commonly used in clinical and educational settings to evaluate progress and outcomes. Each goal is scaled on a six-point scale, ranging from -3 to +2:
Goal Attainment Scaling endpoints will be formulated according to SMART-principles to standardize results.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.
The MobQues28 is a parent-reported mobility questionnaire used in cerebral palsy research that assesses gait-related function across different domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) developed for ambulant children with CP.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.
The GOAL is a parent-reported mobility questionnaire that assesses gait-related function across different domains of the ICF and is developed for ambulant children with CP. The GOAL is a more comprehensive and better standardized version of the MobQues28. However, since our study population is based off expected differences in the MobQues28 (since data for the GOAL on this subject does not exist yet), both questionnaires are included.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.
Harter's Self-Perception Profile for Children (HSPPC) is a psychological assessment tool designed to measure self-concept in children. Children will be assessed on the domains of social competence, athletic competence, and global self-worth.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks
Physical activity will be measured over a 7-day period using a wearable accelerometer that participants will have to carry for seven days. The accelerometer picks up accelerations of the body and can accurately estimate physical (in)activity accordingly. The accelerometer does not have an interface and does not save any personal data.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks
Sleep will be measured over a 7-day period using a wearable accelerometer that participants will have to carry for seven days. The accelerometer picks up accelerations of the body and can estimate sleep duration and quality. The accelerometer does not have an interface and does not save any personal data.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.
Body composition; measured using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). BIA is a method to assess body composition based on the resistance of different tissue types against an unnoticeable electric pulse through the body, since fat mass and fat free mass have a different conductivity.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.
The 1-minute walk test is a physical test that measures walking speed. The child is asked to walk as quickly as possible around a measured track for a period of one minute. The distance walked within 1 minute is measured and recorded.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.
The shuttle run test is a physical test that measures aerobic endurance. Children walk or run at a set incremental speed between two markers that are placed ten meters apart. These walks/runs are coordinated by a recorded CD that plays a sound at pre-determined intervals. Children have to keep up with the speed of these intervals and are measured by the level they reached. Different validated tests will be used for children of different GMFCS levels.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.
The Muscle Power Sprint Test is a physical test that measures anaerobic capacity. Children have to perform a fifteen meter sprint as fast as possible, repeated six times with ten seconds of rest in between. Their score will be presented in mean and peak power (force * speed).
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks).
Dietary intake at baseline; measured using a 3-day food record in which parents have to track the nutritional intake of their child during two week days and one weekend day.
Time frame: Through study completion. An average of 2 years.
A process evaluation will be employed to monitor and document program implementation. With this information, the goal is to evaluate to what extend the MegaPower training was implemented as intended in the participating study centers. This allows us to understand the relationship between specific program elements and program outcomes. The framework by Saunders et al., describing five components of process evaluation will be used. The methods proposed contains questionnaires, report and registration forms, interviews, and focus groups. As a part of this process evaluation, parents will also be asked to fill out a questionnaire about whether their child is happy with the care they received.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks)
Age (years and months) at start of study.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks); t = 12 weeks, t = 24 weeks, t = 36 weeks.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks)
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks)
The mobility and gross motor skills of people with cerebral palsy are categorized into five different levels using a tool called the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS).
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks)
Spastic/dyskinetic/ataxic/unilateral/bilateral/hemiplegia/diplegia/quadriplegia/other.
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks)
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks)
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks)
Time frame: Baseline (t = 0 weeks)
Do the child and the family of the child participate in any sports? And if so, how many times a week?
Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.
Marjolein M. Van der Krogt, dr.
CONTACT
Rijk Dersjant, drs.
CONTACT
Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc
Other
Power2Walk: The Impact of Functional Power Training on Participation and Activity in Children With Cerebral Palsy - A Randomized Controlled Trial
Acronym: Power2Walk
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT07253857
Brain Damage, Chronic, Brain Diseases
Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistan
View Trial DetailsNCT06330922
Brain Damage, Chronic, Brain Diseases
Graz, Austria
View Trial DetailsNCT07118228
Brain Damage, Chronic, Brain Diseases
Kocaeli, Turkey (Türkiye)
View Trial DetailsNCT05593887
Brain Damage, Chronic, Brain Diseases
Cairo, Abbasia, Egypt
View Trial Details