Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
There is a broad spectrum of footwear research in adults which identifies changing footwear characteristic and their influence on various biomechanical aspects of task performance. This is not transferrable to the aging, growing child with differing foot morphology, function and biomechanics. This systematic review aims to evaluate research comparing the effect of footwear types and characteristics on the biomechanics of children’s non-walking gross motor movement. A systematic review was undertaken to search, select and assess the quality of papers relevant to the research question using the following PICO strategy. Population: typically developing children aged 3–12 years with no neuro-musculoskeletal conditions; Intervention: footwear; Comparison: shoe conditions; Outcome: non-walking movement biomechanics. Studies were screened from a prior search and scoping review which resulted in 194 studies assessed for eligibility and eight meeting the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Identified studies predominantly focussed on straight line running wearing running shoes (in five of the eight studies this was minimalist). Only one additional task was recorded (cutting) in one paper). Spatiotemporal outcomes were a focus, with mixed influence of footwear on outcomes. Kinematics (particularly at the ankle) were widely reported and changes at the ankle were identified in response to footwear condition and were age dependent. Due to the small sample sizes and inconsistent, ill-defined, footwear conditions it is hard to draw conclusions. Systematically modified footwear and broader task performance, not just straight-line running, within experimental designs would support the understanding of biomechanical implications of footwear characteristics in children.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hammocks et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: