Table 1.
Study characteristics. Articles are numbered chronologically based on the year in which they were published.
| Article | Participants | Setting; MROC Model (Country) | Intervention Design | Purpose | Study Design (Level of Evidence) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Zazula & Foulds (1983) | 11-month-old with phocomelia | Home; Seated (United States) | Not intervention, used for six months | Determine the feasibility of adapting commercially available ride-on car materials for use as a powered mobility device | Case report (V) |
| 2. Chiulli et al. (1988) | 4-year-old with post-polio syndrome and 3-year-old with spastic quadriplegia | Community; Seated (United States) | Not intervention, used for one day | Assess the feasibility of using a MROC for use as a powered mobility device | Case series (V) |
| 3. Deitz et al. (2002) | Two 5-year-olds with spastic quadriplegia | Community; Seated (United States) | 10-weeks baseline 2- to 3-weeks intervention 2- to 3- weeks post-intervention | Explore the effects of a MROC on the participation of children with disabilities (movement, contact with others, affect) | SSRD ABA for one child; SSRD ABAB for one child (IV) |
| 4. Huang et al. (2014) | 21-month-old with cerebral palsy | Home; Seated (United States) | 1-week baseline 12-weeks intervention 2-weeks post-intervention | Determine the feasibility of using a MROC (sitting tolerance, driving ability, interest in daily use, family compliance) | SSRD ABA* (IV) *identified as case report in article |
| 5. Logan et al. (2014) | 13-month-old with Down syndrome | Home; Seated (United States) | 12-weeks baseline 12-weeks intervention 4-weeks retention | Quantify the feasibility and family perceptions of using a MROC for increasing daily mobility, socialisation, and fun | SSRD ABA* (IV) *identified as single case study in article |
| 6. Logan et al. (2016) | Three children with complex medical needs: (A) 6-month-old; (B) 19-month-old; (C) 6-year-old | Hospital; Seated (United States) | 12-weeks baseline 5–8 weeks intervention (shortened due to health complications) | Determine the feasibility of short-term MROC use for exploration and enjoyment by children with complex medical needs | SSRD AB case series (V) |
| 7. Logan et al. (2017) | 4.5-year-old with tethered spinal cord | Community; Sit-to-stand (United States) | Not intervention, duration of use not specified | Document and compare how different assistive devices (forearm crutches and MROC) impact play behaviours | Case report (V) |
| 8. Huang & Chen (2017)a | 20 1- to 3-year-olds with mild to moderate motor disabilities (10 with MROC): cerebral palsy (4); Down syndrome (2); developmental delay (2); other (2) | Hospital; Seated (Taiwan) | 9-weeks intervention | Examine the effects of MROC training versus conventional therapy on mobility and social function of children, and assess the effects of MROC training on caregivers’ perceived stress levels | Non-equivalent preposttest control group design (III) |
| 9. Huang et al. (2017)a | *Same sample as Huang & Chen (2017) | Characterize behavioural changes in mobility and socialisation in children receiving MROC training in hospital environment | Observational data of non-equivalent preposttest control group design (IV) | ||
| 10. Ross et al. (2018) | Five 16- to 20-month-olds with mild to moderate motor disabilities: cerebral palsy (3), Down syndrome (1), Dandy Walker and cerebral palsy (1) | Community; Seated (United States) | 5-weeks baseline 11-weeks intervention | Determine the feasibility of MROC use during an inclusive playgroup, and determine the effect of MROC use on play behaviours of children with and without disabilities | SSRD AB case series (V) |
| 11. Logan et al. (2018) | Three young children with various disabilities: (A) 29-month-old with cerebral palsy; (B) 12-month-old with microdeletion; (C) 21-month-old with microcephaly | Home; Seated (United States) | 12-weeks baseline 12-weeks intervention | Determine the effect of MROC use in natural environments on mobility | Nonrandomized SSRD AB case series (V) |
| 12. Huang, Chen, et al. (2018)b | 29 1- to 3-year-olds with motor disabilities (15 with MROC): developmental delay (11); cerebral palsy (2); other (2) | Hospital; Seated (Taiwan) | 9-weeks intervention 9-weeks follow-up | Examine the effects of combining MROC training with an adult-directed social interaction program in hospital-based environment on mobility and social functions | Non-equivalent preposttest control group design (III) |
| 13. Huang, Huang, et al. (2018)b | *Same sample as Huang et al. (2018) | Examine the effects of combining MROC training with an adult-directed social interaction program in hospital-based environment on improving mastery motivation and home affordances | Non-equivalent preposttest control group design (III) | ||
| 14. Feldner et al. (2019)c | 4-year-old with cerebral palsy | Home; Seated (United States) | Not intervention, used for one year | Investigate children’s and family’s experiences of powered mobility provision processes and early use of their new technology, using their own words and images | Qualitative case study (N/A) |
| 15. Logan, Catena, et al. (2019) | Four 7-9month-olds with Down syndrome | Home; Seated and sit-to-stand (United States) | 9-months intervention | Determine the feasibility of use of a MROC with seated and standing modes | Case series (IV) |
| 16. Plummer (2019) | 21-month-old with Segawa syndrome | Home; Seated (United States) | 8-weeks intervention | Examine behavioural changes of a child using a MROC and assess the validity of an observational and mobility skills checklist | Case report (V) |
| 17. Restrepo et al. (2019) | Three 3- to 4-year-olds with cerebral palsy | Community; Seated (Colombia) | Not intervention, used for one day | Examine the feasibility of implementing a Go Baby Go program in Colombia | Case series (IV) |
| 18. Pritchard-Wiart et al. (2019) | Five 3–58month-olds with various disabilities: cerebral palsy (4); arthrogryposis and hypotonia (1) | Home; Seated (United States) | 8-weeks intervention | Describe required modifications for children with more severe mobility limitations, report use, describe parents’ roles, and explore therapist and parent perspectives regarding MROC use | Case series (IV) |
| 19. Logan, Hospodar, et al. (2019)d | 14 1- to 3-year-olds with various disabilities: cerebral palsy (3); Down syndrome (2); spina bifida (3); developmental delay (3); Sjogren-Larsson syndrome (1); Wolf Hirschhorn (1); microcephaly (1) | Home; Seated (United States) | Not intervention, used for 3 months | Describe real-world use of MROC and compare parent-reported use with use reported by an electronic tracker | Case series (IV) |
| 20. Feldner (2019)c | *Same sample as Feldner et al. (2019) | Understand the perceptions and experiences of children with disabilities and their families during the introduction process to powered mobility, with a specific focus on the shaping of disability identity | Qualitative case study (N/A) | ||
| 21. Hospodar et al. (2020) | Eight 6.5- to 12.5-month-olds with Down syndrome | Home; Seated, sit-to-stand, and power-push (United States) | 7- to 15-months intervention | Describe total dosage and daily use of three distinct MROC modes, assess ability of young children with Down syndrome to independently activate the MROCs, and describe the age of onset of selected motor milestones of children in the intervention compared to norms | Case series (IV) |
| 22. Logan et al. (2020)d | *Same sample as Logan et al. (2019) | Examine how caregivers’ perceived barriers of use change before and after a three-month period of MROC use | Qualitative case series (N/A) | ||
| 23. Livingstone et al. (2020) | 74 9–68-month-olds with mobility limitations | Community; Seated | Not intervention, used for one day | Describe and compare children’s use of and parents’ preference for MROCs compared to three other powered mobility devices | Case series (IV) |
Superscript letters denote pairs of articles that used the same sample. See Results for a description of the different modified ride-on car (MROC) models. See Wiart et al. [18] for “Levels of Evidence” criteria for single-subject and group designs; the quality of qualitative studies was not rated. SSRD=single subject research design.