Pocovi N1, Colliver Y2, Pacey V1, Liao J1, O'Laco E1, Shepherd R3, Scrivener K1
1Macquarie University, Department of Health Professions, Sydney, Australia, 2Macquarie University, Department of Educational Studies, Sydney, Australia, 3University of Sydney, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Sydney, Australia
Background: Paediatric Physiotherapists commonly teach infants with delayed development to stand and move. Strategies used include use of physical assistance and modifying the environment to promote movement. However, little is known about how assistance and the environment encourage or discourage movement in infants displaying typical development.
Purpose: The broad aim of this study was to describe movement in infants exhibiting typical development and explore the relationship between movement and the environment. Specifically, we aimed to describe the proportion of time infants spend in various positions and activities throughout the day; and to examine environmental factors (e.g. people present, location, available equipment) associated with increased activity and upright mobility in infants whilst attending Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) facilities in Australia.
Methods: Utilising a behaviour mapping technique, infants aged 6-18 months (n=20) that were not yet mobilising two meters independently but exhibited typical development were observed at three ECEC facilities. Participants were observed every five-minutes during the day, for 3 days over a 2-week period. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the mean proportion of awake time spent in designated zones, positions, activities and the presence of others. To determine a difference between conditions, a paired t-test was used. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, and statistical significance was set at p 0.05.
Results: The most frequented body position for infants was sitting either on a chair or the floor (42%). The majority (64%) of upright time was spent holding furniture/equipment, and there was a significant difference between upright time with and without furniture (MD 28, 95% CI 13 to 44, p 0.01). There was also a trend of more time spent upright (regardless of degree of support from furniture/equipment) when infants were partaking in solitary behaviour (MD 8, 95% CI -22 to 38, p= 0.24). Infants displayed significantly more sedentary behaviour in periods where people were present compared to when solitary (MD 21, 95% CI 6 to 36, p 0.01). Additionally, infants were significantly more active during floor mobility when solitary compared to when people were present (MD 52, 95% CI 38 to 67 p 0.01), supporting more active behaviour when unaccompanied.
Conclusion(s): Results suggest that physical contact and communication from adults and peers may encourage more sedentary behaviour in infants displaying typical development. Infants were most active on the floor and upright when solitary. Infants in our sample appeared to engage more in developmentally-appropriate physical activity when supervised from a distance, implying the value of adults allowing infants to engage in intrinsically-motivated play and activities. It is hypothesised that the same results would not be seen in infants with developmental delay. Future research in understanding the relationship between movement and the environment in those with developmental delay could be of value to Physiotherapists.
Implications: Structuring the environment and equipment so that infants displaying typical development can engage in safe child-led activity, may help promote increased levels of activity and upright time.
Keywords: Infant development, physical activity, sedentary behaviour
Funding acknowledgements: No funding was sought for this project.
Purpose: The broad aim of this study was to describe movement in infants exhibiting typical development and explore the relationship between movement and the environment. Specifically, we aimed to describe the proportion of time infants spend in various positions and activities throughout the day; and to examine environmental factors (e.g. people present, location, available equipment) associated with increased activity and upright mobility in infants whilst attending Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) facilities in Australia.
Methods: Utilising a behaviour mapping technique, infants aged 6-18 months (n=20) that were not yet mobilising two meters independently but exhibited typical development were observed at three ECEC facilities. Participants were observed every five-minutes during the day, for 3 days over a 2-week period. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the mean proportion of awake time spent in designated zones, positions, activities and the presence of others. To determine a difference between conditions, a paired t-test was used. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, and statistical significance was set at p 0.05.
Results: The most frequented body position for infants was sitting either on a chair or the floor (42%). The majority (64%) of upright time was spent holding furniture/equipment, and there was a significant difference between upright time with and without furniture (MD 28, 95% CI 13 to 44, p 0.01). There was also a trend of more time spent upright (regardless of degree of support from furniture/equipment) when infants were partaking in solitary behaviour (MD 8, 95% CI -22 to 38, p= 0.24). Infants displayed significantly more sedentary behaviour in periods where people were present compared to when solitary (MD 21, 95% CI 6 to 36, p 0.01). Additionally, infants were significantly more active during floor mobility when solitary compared to when people were present (MD 52, 95% CI 38 to 67 p 0.01), supporting more active behaviour when unaccompanied.
Conclusion(s): Results suggest that physical contact and communication from adults and peers may encourage more sedentary behaviour in infants displaying typical development. Infants were most active on the floor and upright when solitary. Infants in our sample appeared to engage more in developmentally-appropriate physical activity when supervised from a distance, implying the value of adults allowing infants to engage in intrinsically-motivated play and activities. It is hypothesised that the same results would not be seen in infants with developmental delay. Future research in understanding the relationship between movement and the environment in those with developmental delay could be of value to Physiotherapists.
Implications: Structuring the environment and equipment so that infants displaying typical development can engage in safe child-led activity, may help promote increased levels of activity and upright time.
Keywords: Infant development, physical activity, sedentary behaviour
Funding acknowledgements: No funding was sought for this project.
Topic: Paediatrics; Human movement analysis; Health promotion & wellbeing/healthy ageing
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: Macquarie University
Ethics committee: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee
Ethics number: 5201600311
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
