A systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis of the physical and mental health benefits of touch interventions

  1. Julian Packheiser
  2. Helena Hartmann
  3. Kelly Fredriksen
  4. Valeria Gazzola
  5. Christian Keysers
  6. Frédéric Michon

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Receiving touch is of critical importance, as many studies have shown that touch promotes mental and physical well-being. We conducted a pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022304281) systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis encompassing 137 studies in the meta-analysis and 75 additional studies in the systematic review ( n  = 12,966 individuals, search via Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science until 1 October 2022) to identify critical factors moderating touch intervention efficacy. Included studies always featured a touch versus no touch control intervention with diverse health outcomes as dependent variables. Risk of bias was assessed via small study, randomization, sequencing, performance and attrition bias. Touch interventions were especially effective in regulating cortisol levels (Hedges’ g  = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.31) and increasing weight (0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) in newborns as well as in reducing pain (0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89), feelings of depression (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78) and state (0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84) or trait anxiety (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) for adults. Comparing touch interventions involving objects or robots resulted in similar physical (0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88 versus 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.64) but lower mental health benefits (0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.49 versus 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73). Adult clinical cohorts profited more strongly in mental health domains compared with healthy individuals (0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80 versus 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55). We found no difference in health benefits in adults when comparing touch applied by a familiar person or a health care professional (0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73 versus 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.61), but parental touch was more beneficial in newborns (0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88 versus 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.61). Small but significant small study bias and the impossibility to blind experimental conditions need to be considered. Leveraging factors that influence touch intervention efficacy will help maximize the benefits of future interventions and focus research in this field.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41562-024-01841-8
  2. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/10873826.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Partly
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Highly appropriate
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Neither appropriate and clear nor inappropriate and unclear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Neither clearly nor unclearly
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Moderately likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, after minor changes

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2023.06.20.23291651v3 on medRxiv
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2023.06.20.23291651v2 on medRxiv
  5. Version published to 10.1101/2023.06.20.23291651v1 on medRxiv