Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 29, 2026

Clinical Practice Protocol of Creative Music Therapy for Preterm Infants and Their Parents in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Published on: January 7, 2020
Early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive
Alicia Spittle1, Jane Orton, Peter J Anderson
1Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and the University of Melbourne, VIBeS Office, 5th Floor, Flemington Road, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia, 3052.
Insights
Early developmental interventions improve cognitive and motor skills in preterm infants during infancy and preschool years. However, these benefits diminish by school age, necessitating further research into optimal intervention strategies.
Area of Science:
- Neonatal care
- Developmental pediatrics
- Evidence-based medicine
Background:
- Infants born preterm face higher risks of cognitive and motor impairments compared to full-term infants.
- Early developmental interventions aim to improve functional outcomes, but long-term effectiveness remains uncertain.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the effectiveness of post-discharge early developmental intervention programs versus standard care for preterm infants.
- To analyze effects based on gestational age, birth weight, brain injury, and intervention focus.
- To assess long-term cognitive and motor outcomes up to adulthood.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials.
- Searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE) from 1966 to August 2015.
- Pooled cognitive and motor outcomes across infancy, preschool, school age, and adulthood.
Main Results:
- Interventions significantly improved cognitive outcomes in infancy (SMD 0.32) and preschool age (SMD 0.43), but not at school age.
- A small positive effect on motor outcomes was observed in infancy (SMD 0.10), with limited long-term evidence.
- No significant effect on the rate of cerebral palsy was found.
Conclusions:
- Early intervention positively impacts preterm infants' cognitive and motor development in infancy and preschool years.
- Significant heterogeneity among studies limits direct comparisons of intervention programs.
- Further research is needed to identify the most effective interventions and their long-term effects.
Background:
Infants born preterm are at increased risk of developing cognitive and motor impairment compared with infants born at term. Early developmental interventions have been provided in the clinical setting with the aim of improving overall functional outcomes for these infants. Long-term benefits of these programmes remain unclear.
Objectives:
Primary objective To compare the effectiveness of early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor or cognitive impairment in preterm (< 37 weeks) infants versus standard medical follow-up of preterm infants at infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years), school age (five to < 18 years) and adulthood (≥ 18 years). Secondary objectives To perform subgroup analyses to determine the following.• Effects of gestational age, birth weight and brain injury (periventricular leukomalacia (PVL)/intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH)) on cognitive and motor outcomes when early intervention is compared with standard follow-up. ∘ Gestational age: < 28 weeks, 28 to < 32 weeks, 32 to < 37 weeks. ∘ Birth weight: < 1000 grams, 1000 to < 1500 grams, 1500 to < 2500 grams. ∘ Brain injury: absence or presence of grade III or grade IV IVH or cystic PVL (or both) or an abnormal ultrasound/magnetic resonance image (MRI) before initiation of the intervention.• Effects of interventions started during inpatient stay with a post-discharge component versus standard follow-up care.• Effects of interventions focused on the parent-infant relationship, infant development or both compared with standard follow-up care.To perform sensitivity analysis to identify the following.• Effects on motor and cognitive impairment when early developmental interventions are provided within high-quality randomised trials with low risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome measures and selective reporting bias.
Search Methods:
The search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used to identify randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of early developmental interventions provided post hospital discharge. Two review authors independently searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Advanced, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO and EMBASE (1966 to August 2015).
Selection Criteria:
Studies included had to be randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of early developmental intervention programmes that began within the first 12 months of life for infants born before 37 weeks' gestational age. Interventions could commence on an inpatient basis 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. Rates of cerebral palsy were documented.
Data Collection And Analysis:
Two independent review authors extracted and entered data. Cognitive and motor outcomes were pooled by four age groups: infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years), school age (five to < 18 years) and adulthood (≥ 18 years). Meta-analysis using RevMan 5.1 was carried out to determine the effects of early developmental interventions at each age range. Subgroup analyses focused on gestational age, birth weight, brain injury, commencement of the intervention, focus of the intervention and study quality.
Main Results:
Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (3615 randomly assigned participants). Only 12 of these studies were randomised controlled trials with appropriate allocation concealment. Variability was evident with regard to focus and intensity of the intervention, participant characteristics and length of follow-up. Meta-analysis led to the conclusion that intervention improved cognitive outcomes at infancy (developmental quotient (DQ): standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32 standard deviations (SDs), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.47; P value < 0.001; 16 studies; 2372 participants) and at preschool age (intelligence quotient (IQ); SMD 0.43 SDs, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54; P value < 0.001; eight studies; 1436 participants). However, this effect was not sustained at school age (IQ: SMD 0.18 SDs, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.43; P value = 0.17; five studies; 1372 participants). Heterogeneity between studies for cognitive outcomes at infancy and at school age was significant. With regards to motor outcomes, meta-analysis of 12 studies showed a significant effect in favour of early developmental interventions at infancy only; however, this effect was small (motor scale DQ: SMD 0.10 SDs, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.19; P value = 0.03; 12 studies; 1895 participants). No effect was noted on the rate of cerebral palsy among survivors (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27; seven studies; 985 participants). Little evidence showed a positive effect on motor outcomes in the long term, but only five included studies reported outcomes at preschool age (n = 3) or at school age (n = 2).
Authors' Conclusions:
Early intervention programmes for preterm infants have a positive influence on cognitive and motor outcomes during infancy, with cognitive benefits persisting into preschool age. A great deal of heterogeneity between studies was due to the variety of early developmental intervention programmes tested and to gestational ages of included preterm infants; thus, comparisons of intervention programmes were limited. Further research is needed to determine which early developmental interventions are most effective in improving cognitive and motor outcomes, and to discern the longer-term effects of these programmes.
Related Concept Videos
Specialized Care Centers and Settings-II
Rural health centers are specialized care facilities in remote locations with very few medical personnel. The primary care providers who run the centers are mostly Registered Nurse Practitioners. Here, emergency treatment is provided to critically ill or injured patients before they are transferred to the closest hospital. Fortunately, due to advancement in technology, many rural healthcare facilities and professionals have easy access to diagnostic and treatment...
Community Based Intervention
Foundations of Community Mental Health Programs
Central to the success of community-based interventions is the...

