Evidence Hub

Evaluation of Ayres Sensory Integration® Intervention on Sensory Processing and Motor Function in a Child with Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome: A Case Report

A. Balıkçı, T. May-Benson, Ayse Firdevs Aracikul Balikci, E. Tarakçı, Zeynep Ikbal Dogan, G. Ilbay

Clinical Medicine Insights: Case Reports, 2023

11 citations

Abstract

The Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome (RSTS) literature is limited about sensory integration, which is a foundational neurological function of the central nervous system that may affect the development of cognitive, social, and motor skills. The aim of this case report was to investigate the effects of Ayres Sensory Integration® (ASI) intervention on processing and integrating sensations, motor functions and parental goals of 3-year-old child with RSTS. Analysis of assessment data reviewed before and after treatment. Assessment collected by interview, Sensory Profile (SP), Sensory Processing Measure-Preschool (SPM-P) Home, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2), Gross Motor Function Measurement-88 (GMFM-88), and Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS). Progress toward goals and objectives was measured with Goal Attainment Scale (GAS). ASI intervention was implemented 3 times per week for 8 weeks. At pre-intervention, SP and SPM-P Home revealed prominent sensory processing and integration difficulties in this case. PDMS-2 scores indicated the child was far behind his peers in fine and gross motor areas. In addition, systematic observations determined that the child’s GMFCS level was III. After 8 weeks of ASI intervention significant improvements were found in parent reports of sensory processing in the areas of vestibular, tactile, and oral functioning on the Sensory Profile. Gains in functional motor skills were found on the GMFM-88 and the GMFCS. Consistent with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free