Effectiveness of Early Physiotherapy Interventions with Guided Parental Involvement on Motor Development in Preterm...

Background/Objectives: Preterm birth is associated with increased risk of motor delay and broader neurodevelopmental vulnerability. Existing reviews have examined neonatal therapy, family-centered care, or early developmental intervention broadly, but the independent evidence for physiotherapy-based interventions in which parents actively deliver or support motor or sensorimotor activities remains uncertain. This review evaluated the effects of early physiotherapy with structured, guided parental involvement on motor development in preterm infants and examined intervention content, parental burden, safety, adherence, and durability of effects. Methods: The review followed PRISMA 2020 and a prespecified PICO framework. The original PubMed, Scopus, and PEDro search was updated through 9 July 2026 using PubMed/MEDLINE, PEDro, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, backward and forward citation tracking, and linked-report searches. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of early physiotherapy, motor, or structured sensorimotor intervention with an active parent-delivered or parent-supported component and a validated motor or neurodevelopmental outcome. Multiple publications from the same randomized cohort were linked and participants were counted once. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane RoB 2, intervention reporting with TIDieR, and certainty with GRADE. Results: Ten reports represented five independent randomized cohorts and 393 unique randomized infants. The Norwegian Parent-Administered Physical Therapy Intervention (NOPPI) produced a moderate short-term improvement in TIMP performance at term-equivalent age, but no consistent advantage in general movements, motor performance at 3 or 24 months, or school-age motor outcomes. COPCA and a NICU-to-home physiotherapy program produced developmental improvement over time or selected short-term gains, without consistent superiority over active or developmental care comparators. A parent-administered sensorimotor intervention by Fucile et al. improved oral-feeding outcomes but not TIMP motor performance, and its linked 18-month follow-up did not demonstrate a clear developmental advantage. Badura et al. found no significant effect of a 10-week parent-delivered general-movement-based program on MOS-R or Bayley-III motor outcomes; adherence was variable, and a transient increase in maternal depressive symptoms at discharge highlighted the importance of treatment burden. Conclusions: Guided parental involvement is feasible and may enhance short-term motor performance when activities are individualized, active, cue-responsive, and closely supervised. However, current evidence does not establish sustained superiority over well-structured usual or traditional care, developmental normalization, or benefit from passive sensorimotor input alone. Clinical implementation should combine competency-based parent training, explicit infant stress cues and stopping rules, realistic dose targets, ongoing professional support, and monitoring of adherence, parental well-being, and adverse events.