Early Physiotherapy Intervention Program for Preterm Infants and Parents: A Randomized, Single-Blind Clinical Trial

Early Intervention Including an Active Motor Component in Preterms with Varying Risks for Neuromotor Delay: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

Background/Objectives: Previous reviews demonstrated stronger benefits of early interventions on cognition compared to motor outcome in preterm-born infants. Potentially, motor development needs more targeted interventions, including at least an active motor component. However, there is no overview focusing on such interventions in preterm-born infants, despite the increased risk for neuromotor delays. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for (quasi-)randomized controlled trials regarding early interventions in preterm-born infants, with varying risks for neuromotor delay, and trials comprising an active motor component started within the first year were included. Study data and participant characteristics were extracted. The risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2 tool. Results: Twenty-five reports, including twenty-one unique (quasi-)RCTs, were included and categorized as either pure motor-based interventions (n = 6) or family-centered interventions (n = 19). Of the motor-based interventions, four improved motor outcomes immediately after the intervention, and one of these also did so at follow-up, compared to five and one for family-centered approaches, respectively. Only five family-centered studies assessed long-term effects beyond age five, finding no greater efficacy than standard care. Overall, large variations were present for intervention intensity, type and outcomes between the included studies. Conclusions: Although methodological heterogeneity compromised conclusions, limited effects on motor outcome, in particular long-term outcome, were identified. Including a stronger motor-focused component embedded within a family-centered approach could potentially increase the impact on motor outcome, which would be of particular interest for infants showing early signs of neuromotor delay.

Effect of Thoracic Squeezing Technique and Expiratory Flow Increase Technique on Neonates With Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Case Report

Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS) is a major cause of morbidity and death in premature newborns due to inadequate surfactant synthesis in the lungs. Preterm birth carries a higher risk of respiratory problems. Clinically cyanosis, grunting, retractions, and tachypnea are signs of early respiratory distress associated with RDS Should therapeutic measures not be implemented, the infant may suffer respiratory failure and increasing hypoxia. This case study investigates how physical therapy affects a preterm newborn with NRDS regarding thoracic squeeze, percussion, and vibration with expiratory flow increase technique The patient's prenatal, natal, and postnatal history is included in depth in the report, along with information on the mother's health, pregnancy difficulties, birth details, first clinical presentation, and care that followed. Despite advancements in treatment through the use of surfactants, prenatal corticosteroids, and advanced respiratory care for the newborn, RDS continues to be the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in premature newborns. The significance of interdisciplinary methods in improving the care and prognosis of newborns with NRDS is shown by this instance.

Early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive impairment in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Infants born preterm are at increased risk of cognitive and motor impairments compared with infants born at term. Early developmental interventions for preterm infants are targeted at the infant or the parent-infant relationship, or both, and may focus on different aspects of early development. They aim to improve developmental outcomes for these infants, but the long-term benefits remain unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007 and updated in 2012 and 2015.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the effect of early developmental interventions compared with standard care in prevention of motor or cognitive impairment for preterm infants in infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years), and school age (five to < 18 years). Secondary objective To assess the effect of early developmental interventions compared with standard care on motor or cognitive impairment for subgroups of preterm infants, including groups based on gestational age, birthweight, brain injury, timing or focus of intervention and study quality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and trial registries in July 2023. We cross-referenced relevant literature, including identified trials and existing review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies included randomised, quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-randomised trials of early developmental intervention programmes that began within the first 12 months of life for infants born before 37 weeks' gestational age (GA). Interventions could commence as an inpatient but had to include a post discharge component for inclusion in this review. Outcome measures were not prespecified, other than that they had to assess cognitive outcomes, motor outcomes or both. The control groups in the studies could receive standard care that would normally be provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from the included studies regarding study and participant characteristics, timing and focus of interventions and cognitive and motor outcomes. Meta-analysis using RevMan was carried out to determine the effects of early developmental interventions at each age range: infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years) and school age (five to < 18 years) on cognitive and motor outcomes. Subgroup analyses focused on GA, birthweight, brain injury, time of commencement of the intervention, focus of the intervention and study quality. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to collect data and evaluate bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria (5051 randomly assigned participants). There were 19 new studies identified in this update (600 participants) and a further 17 studies awaiting outcomes. Three previously included studies had new data. There was variability in the focus and intensity of the interventions, participant characteristics, and length of follow-up. All included studies were either single or multicentre trials and the number of participants varied from fewer than 20 to up to 915 in one study. The trials included in this review were mainly undertaken in middle- or high-income countries. The majority of studies commenced in the hospital, with fewer commencing once the infant was home. The focus of the intervention programmes for new included studies was increasingly targeted at both the infant and the parent-infant relationship. The intensity and dosages of interventions varied between studies, which is important when considering the applicability of any programme in a clinical setting. Meta-analysis demonstrated that early developmental intervention may improve cognitive outcomes in infancy (developmental quotient (DQ): standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.27 standard deviations (SDs), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.40; P < 0.001; 25 studies; 3132 participants, low-certainty evidence), and improves cognitive outcomes at preschool age (intelligence quotient (IQ); SMD 0.39 SD, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.50; P < 0.001; 9 studies; 1524 participants, high-certainty evidence). However, early developmental intervention may not improve cognitive outcomes at school age (IQ: SMD 0.16 SD, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.38; P = 0.15; 6 studies; 1453 participants, low-certainty evidence). Heterogeneity between studies for cognitive outcomes in infancy and preschool age was moderate and at school age was substantial. Regarding motor function, meta-analysis of 23 studies showed that early developmental interventions may improve motor outcomes in infancy (motor scale DQ: SMD 0.12 SD, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.19; P = 0.003; 23 studies; 2737 participants, low-certainty evidence). At preschool age, the intervention probably did not improve motor outcomes (motor scale: SMD 0.08 SD, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.32; P = 0.53; 3 studies; 264 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence at school age for both continuous (motor scale: SMD -0.06 SD, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.18; P = 0.61; three studies; 265 participants, low-certainty evidence) and dichotomous outcome measures (low score on Movement Assessment Battery for Children (ABC) : RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.32; P = 0.74; 3 studies; 413 participants, low-certainty evidence) suggests that intervention may not improve motor outcome. The main source of bias was performance bias, where there was a lack of blinding of participants and personnel, which was unavoidable in this type of intervention study. Other biases in some studies included attrition bias where the outcome data were incomplete, and inadequate allocation concealment or selection bias. The GRADE assessment identified a lower certainty of evidence in the cognitive and motor outcomes at school age. Cognitive outcomes at preschool age demonstrated a high certainty due to more consistency and a larger treatment effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early developmental intervention programmes for preterm infants probably improve cognitive and motor outcomes during infancy (low-certainty evidence) while, at preschool age, intervention is shown to improve cognitive outcomes (high-certainty evidence). Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies due to variations in aspects of the intervention programmes, the population and outcome measures utilised. Further research is needed to determine which types of early developmental interventions are most effective in improving cognitive and motor outcomes, and in particular to discern whether there is a longer-term benefit from these programmes.

Effect of tactile and/or kinesthetic stimulation therapy of preterm infants on their parents' anxiety and depressive symptoms: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In the case of preterm birth, the idealized postnatal period is replaced by an anxious and even traumatic experience for parents. Higher prevalence of parental anxiety, postnatal depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder has been observed in mothers of preterm infants up to 18 months after childbirth. There is increasing evidence that proprioceptive stimulation has a beneficial effect on preterms' short-term outcomes. Could this care also have an impact on parental anxiety and depressive symptoms? We reviewed recent publications on the impact on parents' anxiety and depressive symptoms of delivering tactile and/or kinesthetic stimulation to their premature newborn.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review by searching the PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases for English-language publications from the past 10 years. We focused on the mothers or fathers of infants born preterm (before 37 weeks of gestation) who provided tactile and/or kinesthetic stimulation to their premature newborn in the neonatal intensive care unit. Relevant outcomes were the parents' anxiety, stress, depressive symptoms, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, assessed with reliable standardized inventories.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were included in the systematic review. Results suggested a beneficial effect of parents' early tactile and kinesthetic stimulation of their preterm infants.

CONCLUSIONS

These interventions may act as protective factors against the occurrence of anxiety and depressive symptoms in parents and deserve to be studied further in this population.

Special Issue: Advances in Healthcare for Neonates

We are delighted to present an editorial for the Special Issue 'Advances in Healthcare for Neonates' [...].

Maternal Risk Factors Associated with Preterm Births among Pregnant Women in Mogadishu, Somalia

Background: Premature birth impacts millions of newborns annually. Sixty percent of the world’s preterm births occur in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Somalia’s premature birth rates and maternal risk factors are poorly studied; hence, this study aims to identify maternal risk factors related to premature births in Mogadishu, Somalia. Methods: This unmatched case-control study was conducted at four maternity hospitals in Mogadishu, Somalia. The cases were newborns with gestational ages of less than 37 weeks; controls were newborns with gestational ages of 37 to 42 weeks. All were live singletons. Cross-tabulation and binary logistic regression were used to analyze the data; a p-value of 0.05 was deemed statistically significant. Result: Of the total of 499 newborns, 70 were cases, and 429 were controls. Adequate prenatal care, maternal urine analysis, tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccination, hemoglobin (Hb) measurement, ultrasound monitoring, intake of iron + folic acid (IFA) supplement, blood pressure (BP) measurement during the current pregnancy, as well as partograph usage during labor all significantly decreased risk of having premature births. A prior history of preterm delivery and preeclampsia, obstetric complications, and female genital mutilation (FGM) significantly increased the risk of preterm births. Conclusion: The utilization of antenatal care services, use of a partograph, obstetric complications, and prior history of premature birth and preeclampsia had a substantial effect on preterm birth rates. This study identifies female genital mutilation (FGM) as a previously unidentified risk factor for preterm birth that needs additional investigation.