Monday, 9 February 2015

EVIDENCE THAT CE WORKS?

Reviewers' fresh response to old, old question

Query: Is there any evidence that Conductive Education is effective to improve functioning for children with cerebral palsy and brain injury and motor disorders?
Systematic reviews provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary overview of the research on a topic by bringing together the results of all studies addressing a particular research question. Three systematic reviews have examined the evidence for CE (published in 2004, 2010, 2013). All three reviews reported that there is currently insufficient evidence from research to inform whether CE is any more effective in improving function than other approaches.
This does not mean that CE is ineffective; it simply tells us that research evidence is not conclusive, due to contradictory findings, methodological flaws of the research, and the highly complex nature of the intervention. Research evidence is one of several factors that should be considered when deciding whether to use particular approaches. Other factors include personal preferences, availability and resources. A parent whose child attends CE advises from experience that CE 'does require a lot of dedication and participation from parents, to practise the exercises on a daily basis at home and take part in the sessions'.

The Peninsula Cerebra Research Unit in Exeter, Devon, describes itself as a collaboration of universities and NHS organisations in the South West of England, which aims to deliver high-quality health research that influences medical practice, to ensure that research addresses issues that are relevant to patients and carers and results in beneficial new treatments and services.

Reference

(2014) Query: Is there any evidence that Conductive Education is effective to improve functioning for children with cerebral palsy and brain injury and motor disorders? Exeter, Peninsula Cerebra Research Unit


1 comment:

  1. "Three systematic reviews have examined the evidence for CE (published in 2004, 2010, 2013)." Actually, no. There are only 2 systematic reviews. The 2013 review (a"a systematic review of systematic reviews) comprises entirely 2 previous reviews - which happen to be the 2004 and 2010 reviews. Check it out! (PS this is not the most serious comment on these reviews but serious enough - because people will quote it as 3 reviews).

    ReplyDelete