IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v8y2024i6d10.1038_s41562-024-01841-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Julian Packheiser

    (Ruhr University Bochum
    Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences)

  • Helena Hartmann

    (Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences
    University Hospital Essen
    University Hospital Essen)

  • Kelly Fredriksen

    (Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences)

  • Valeria Gazzola

    (Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences)

  • Christian Keysers

    (Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences)

  • Frédéric Michon

    (Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian Packheiser & Helena Hartmann & Kelly Fredriksen & Valeria Gazzola & Christian Keysers & Frédéric Michon, 2024. "A systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis of the physical and mental health benefits of touch interventions," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(6), pages 1088-1107, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1038_s41562-024-01841-8
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01841-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01841-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-024-01841-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scarr-Salapatek, S. & Williams, M.L., 1972. "A stimulation program for low birth weight infants," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 62(5), pages 662-667.
    2. Marta C. Soares & Rui F. Oliveira & Albert F.H. Ros & Alexandra S. Grutter & Redouan Bshary, 2011. "Tactile stimulation lowers stress in fish," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 2(1), pages 1-5, September.
    3. Marjorie Coulon & Raymond Nowak & Julie Peyrat & Hervé Chandèze & Alain Boissy & Xavier Boivin, 2015. "Do Lambs Perceive Regular Human Stroking as Pleasant? Behavior and Heart Rate Variability Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2010. "Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i03).
    5. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lippens, Louis & Vermeiren, Siel & Baert, Stijn, 2023. "The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Shannon G. Klein & Cassandra Roch & Carlos M. Duarte, 2024. "Systematic review of the uncertainty of coral reef futures under climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Liu, Caiyan & Wang, Zhikeng & Yang, Yajiao & Mao, Peipei & Tai, Robert H. & Cai, Zhihui & Fan, Xitao, 2024. "Do males have more favorable attitudes towards digital game use than Females: A Meta-Analytic review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Christopher Hansen & Holger Steinmetz & Jörn Block, 2022. "How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Michael Briga & Elizabeth Goult & Tobias S. Brett & Pejman Rohani & Matthieu Domenech de Cellès, 2024. "Maternal pertussis immunization and the blunting of routine vaccine effectiveness: a meta-analysis and modeling study," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Müller, Nathalie & Fallucchi, Francesco & Suhrcke, Marc, 2024. "Peer effects in weight-related behaviours of young people: A systematic literature review," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. Islam, Samiha & Jaffee, Sara R., 2024. "Social mobility and mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    8. Callis, Zoe & Gerrans, Paul & Walker, Dana L. & Gignac, Gilles E., 2023. "The association between intelligence and financial literacy: A conceptual and meta-analytic review," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. Elena Gazzea & Péter Batáry & Lorenzo Marini, 2023. "Global meta-analysis shows reduced quality of food crops under inadequate animal pollination," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.
    10. Tineo, Petty & Bixter, Michael T. & Polanco-Roman, Lillian & Grapin, Sally L. & Taveras, Lizbeth & Reyes-Portillo, Jazmin, 2024. "The impact of acculturative stress on internalizing problems among racially and ethnically minoritized adolescents and young adults in the U.S.: A systematic review and meta-analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 357(C).
    11. Oxley, Florence A.R. & Wilding, Kirsty & von Stumm, Sophie, 2024. "DNA and IQ: Big deal or much ado about nothing? – A meta-analysis," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    12. Francisco Rubén Badenes-Pérez, 2022. "Benefits of Insect Pollination in Brassicaceae: A Meta-Analysis of Self-Compatible and Self-Incompatible Crop Species," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-24, March.
    13. Schaerer, Michael & du Plessis, Christilene & Nguyen, My Hoang Bao & van Aert, Robbie C.M. & Tiokhin, Leo & Lakens, Daniël & Giulia Clemente, Elena & Pfeiffer, Thomas & Dreber, Anna & Johannesson, Mag, 2023. "On the trajectory of discrimination: A meta-analysis and forecasting survey capturing 44 years of field experiments on gender and hiring decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    14. Heike Schuler & Valeria Bonapersona & Marian Joëls & R Angela Sarabdjitsingh, 2022. "Effects of early life adversity on immediate early gene expression: Systematic review and 3-level meta-analysis of rodent studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-21, January.
    15. Carmen Schaeuffele & Laura E. Meine & Ava Schulz & Maxi C. Weber & Angela Moser & Christina Paersch & Dominique Recher & Johanna Boettcher & Babette Renneberg & Christoph Flückiger & Birgit Kleim, 2024. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of transdiagnostic cognitive behavioural therapies for emotional disorders," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(3), pages 493-509, March.
    16. Wang, Lin & Blanchy, Guillaume & Cornelis, Wim & Garré, Sarah, 2024. "Changes in soil hydraulic and physio-chemical properties under treated wastewater irrigation: A meta-analysis," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 295(C).
    17. Bart Verkuil & Serpil Atasayi & Marc L Molendijk, 2015. "Workplace Bullying and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.
    18. Boglárka Anna Éliás & Attila Jámbor, 2021. "Food Security and COVID-19: A Systematic Review of the First-Year Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, May.
    19. Omoyele, Olalekan & Hoffmann, Maximilian & Koivisto, Matti & Larrañeta, Miguel & Weinand, Jann Michael & Linßen, Jochen & Stolten, Detlef, 2024. "Increasing the resolution of solar and wind time series for energy system modeling: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).
    20. Francesca Pilotto & Ingolf Kühn & Rita Adrian & Renate Alber & Audrey Alignier & Christopher Andrews & Jaana Bäck & Luc Barbaro & Deborah Beaumont & Natalie Beenaerts & Sue Benham & David S. Boukal & , 2020. "Meta-analysis of multidecadal biodiversity trends in Europe," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1038_s41562-024-01841-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.