Journal of Orthopedics and Joint Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2022 ) > List of Articles

CASE REPORT

Budding Well: A Fun and Sharing-based Rehabilitation Program through Music and Arts for the Children and Teenagers with Extremity Anomalies

Pak-Cheong Ho, Josephine M-W Wong, Wai-Wang Chau, Alice H-Y Cheung, Hiu-Wun Wong, Gabby S-S Hui, Edwin Lee, Judia S-C Yue, Michael Mak, Wing-Lim Tse

Keywords : Art, Child, Musculoskeletal abnormalities, Music, Rehabilitation

Citation Information : Ho P, Wong JM, Chau W, Cheung AH, Wong H, Hui GS, Lee E, Yue JS, Mak M, Tse W. Budding Well: A Fun and Sharing-based Rehabilitation Program through Music and Arts for the Children and Teenagers with Extremity Anomalies. 2022; 4 (1):40-46.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10079-1041

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-01-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: Children with physical disabilities are less likely to access music and arts due to their extremity anomalies. “Budding Well” is a non-conventional rehabilitation program providing music and arts courses for the targeted participants. The program has run through the third year and a review of the service outcomes has been sorted. Materials and methods: Aged 6–18 years with different kinds and degrees of limb dysfunctions were invited to join the program. The course consisted of 10 learning classes on playing harmonica (music) or painting (arts). Functional assessments [Bruininks-Oseretsky-Test-of-Motor- Proficiency second edition (BOT-2) and Grip-and-pinch strength] and psychosocial centric questionnaires [Lyubomirsky and Lepper\'s Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS), Well-being Index (WHO-5), and Culture-free Self-esteem Inventory-2 (CFESI-2) Form A] were performed and completed at the first and last (10th) class. Program evaluation questionnaire was filled at the last class. Results: Thirty-five participants (male = 20, female = 15) of mean age 8.65 joined the program. Functional assessments and psychosocial centric questionnaire outcomes except CFESI-2 did not show any statistical difference. Age sensitivity testing in CFESI-2 Social domain score showed the best result when cut-off age was at 10.5 (p = 0.04) and this cut-off value was further proved by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis (p < 0.01). On subjective evaluation, parents noticed a significant improvement in the hand function of their children (p= 0.01). Conclusion: Hand functions and psychosocial skills of children and teenagers with different levels of physical disabilities or disfigurement proved to benefit from our program through music and arts. Participants of age at 10.5 best responded to the program, particularly on the significant improvement in self-esteem.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Budding_Well. [Budding Well]. Available at: https://www.facebook. com/buddingwell/.
  2. Bruininks RH. Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency: examiner's manualed. American Guidance Service; 1978.
  3. Bruininks RH, Bruininks BD. BOT2: Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency: manualed. Pearson Assessments; 2005.
  4. Deitz JC, Kartin D, Kopp K. Review of the Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency. 2nd ed. (BOT-2). Phys Occupat Therapy Pediat 2007;27(4):87–102. DOI: 10.1080/J006v27n04_06
  5. McQuiddy VA, Scheerer CR, Lavalley R, et al. Normative values for grip and pinch strength for 6- to 19-year-olds. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015;96(9):1627–1633. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.03.018./jrn>
  6. Bohannon RW. Hand-grip dynamometry provides a valid indication of upper extremity strength impairment in home care patients. J Hand Ther 1998;11(4):258–260. DOI: 10.1016/s0894-1130(98) 80021-5
  7. Molenaar HM, Zuidam JM, Selles RW, et al. Age-specific reliability of two grip-strength dynamometers when used by children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90(5):1053–1059. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00469
  8. Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Oberg B. Intra- and inter-tester reliability and reference values for hand strength. J Rehabil Med 2001;33(1):36–41. DOI: 10.1080/165019701300006524
  9. Bellace JV, Healy D, Besser MP, et al. Validity of the Dexter evaluation system's Jamar dynamometer attachment for assessment of hand grip strength in a normal population. J Hand Ther 2000;13(1):46–51. DOI: 10.1016/s0894-1130(00)80052-6
  10. Mathiowetz V. Comparison of Rolyan and Jamar dynamometers for measuring grip strength. Occup Ther Int 2002;9(3):201–209. DOI: 10.1002/oti.165
  11. Shechtman O, MacKinnon L, Locklear C. Using the BTE Primus to measure grip and wrist flexion strength in physically active wheelchair users: an exploratory study. Am J Occup Ther 2001;55(4):393–400. DOI: 10.5014/ajot.55.4.393./jrn>
  12. King TI. Interinstrument reliability of the Jamar electronic dynamometer and pinch gauge compared with the Jamar hydraulic dynamometer and B&L engineering mechanical pinch gauge. Am J Occup Ther 2013;67(4):480–483. DOI: 10.5014/ajot.2013.007351
  13. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Volland G, et al. Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations J Hand Surg Am 1984;9(2):222–226. DOI: 10.1016/s0363-5023(84)80146-x
  14. Lyubomirsky S, Lepper HS. A measure of subjective happiness: preliminary reliability and construct validation. Soc Indicat Res 1999;46(2):137–155. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006824100041
  15. Nan H, Ni MY, Lee PH, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the subjective happiness scale: evidence from the Hong Kong FAMILY Cohort. Int J Behav Med 2014;21(4):646–652. DOI: 10.1007/s12529-014-9389-3
  16. Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, et al. The WHO-5 Well- Being index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psycho 2015;84(3):167–176. DOI: 10.1159/000376585
  17. Chan Y-HY, The normative data and factor structure of the culture- free self-esteem inventory-form a-second edition in Hong Kong adolescents. HKU Theses Online (HKUTO): The University of Hong Kong (Pokfulam, Hong Kong), 2002.
  18. Orth U, Erol RY, Luciano EC. Development of self-esteem from age 4 to 94 years: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull 2018;144(10):1045–1080. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000161
  19. Orth U. The family environment in early childhood has a long-term effect on self-esteem: a longitudinal study from birth to age 27 years. J Personal Soc Psychol 2018;114(4):637–655. DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000143
  20. Daniels DH. Age differences in concepts of self-esteem. Merrill Palmer Q 1998;44:234–258.
  21. Helwig N, Ruprecht M. Age, gender, and self-esteem: a sociocultural look through a nonparametric lens. Archi Scienti Psychol 2017;5(1): 19–31. DOI: 10.1037/arc0000032
  22. Harter S. Developmental and individual difference perspectives on self-esteem. Handbook of personality development. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2006. pp. 311–334.
  23. Harter S. The development of self-esteem. Self-esteem issues and answers: a sourcebook of current perspectives. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press; 2006. pp. 144–150.
  24. Harter S. The self. Handbook of child psychology: social, emotional, and personality development, vol. 3 6th ed., Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2006. pp. 505–570.
  25. Harter S. The construction of the self: developmental and sociocultural foundations. In: The inextricable link between perceived physical appearance and self-esteem. Ch. 5, 2nd ed., New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 2012. pp. 158–193.
  26. Choi AN, Lee MS, Lee JS. Group Music Intervention Reduces Aggression and Improves Self-esteem in Children with Highly Aggressive Behavior: A Pilot Controlled Trial. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2010;7(2):213–217. DOI: 10.1093/ecam/nem182
  27. Mak HW, Fancourt D. Arts engagement and self-esteem in children: results from a propensity score matching analysis. Ann New York Acad Sci 2019;1449(1):36–45. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14056
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.