Early Physiotherapy Interventions for Improving Motor Outcomes in Infants at Risk: A Systematic Review

Creative Commons License

Çakır D., Sonmez F., Demir E., Çömük Balcı N., Kemer S. N., Dogan İ. E.

Innovative Journal of Pediatrics, cilt.36, sa.3, 2026 (Scopus)

Özet

Context: Early intervention is widely recommended for infants at risk of developmental disorders, particularly those born preterm or affected by neonatal encephalopathy. Although previous studies have generally reported positive effects, intervention programs vary substantially in theoretical basis, content, and delivery. This review synthesized evidence on the effects of motor interventions for at-risk infants from birth to 24 months of age. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Wiley Online Library, Web of Science, PEDro, and Scopus were searched for relevant publications. Studies were eligible if they included at-risk infants aged up to 24 months who received early motor interventions delivered by physiotherapists. Results: After eligibility assessment, 9 studies of moderate-to-high methodological quality were retained for in-depth evaluation. In all 9 studies, at-risk infants received rehabilitation delivered by physiotherapists or ergotherapists. Seven studies used a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, 1 used a three-arm RCT design, and 1 was a feasibility pilot RCT. Interventions limited to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) settings were excluded according to the predefined exclusion criteria. The total intervention duration, session frequency, and session duration varied across studies. Total intervention durations ranged from 2 to 12 weeks, and session durations ranged from 4 to 60 minutes. Discussion: Motor-based early physiotherapy interventions may have beneficial effects in some developmental domains in infants at risk. However, the current evidence base is heterogeneous, and findings across studies are inconsistent. In addition, only a minority of studies were classified as having a low risk of bias. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, and definitive conclusions regarding effectiveness cannot yet be drawn. Future research should include well-designed randomized controlled trials with standardized interventions, rigorous methods, and long-term follow-up assessments.