PTRCTJournal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID2026

Abdominal Massage for Adults With an Intellectual Disability and Constipation: A Feasibility Pilot Study.

Janet Finlayson, Kirsteen Goodman, Jennifer Crockett and 4 others

PMID 41814538

WHAT IT FOUND

Supporters of adults with severe or profound intellectual disability learned abdominal massage in one session and felt confident giving it, but only 6 of 20 kept to the full 6-week schedule.

The study was too small to show whether it eases constipation.

Key findings

01Home-based abdominal massage was deliverable: 19 of the 24 people assigned to it chose the device over massage by hand, but only 6 of the 20 who remained in the study met the full recommendation of 15 to 20 minutes a day at least 5 days a week for 6 weeks.

02All 22 supporters in the sub-sample asked said one practical demonstration gave them enough information to feel confident applying the massage.

03The 20 people in the massage group or their supporters reported changes they attributed to massage, including less need for suppositories or enemas (3 people), being happier or more content (3), more comfortable (2), more relaxed (2) and sleeping better (2), with single reports of less straining, fewer epileptic seizures and less behaviour that challenges; two people reported no change.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

No statistical comparison was made between the groups, which the authors attribute to the small sample size, so the study cannot show whether abdominal massage reduces constipation. Only 31 of the planned 40 participants were recruited, 78% of the target, and recruitment was steady but slow across two sites. Seven otherwise eligible adults could not take part because no nearest relative or welfare guardian was available to consent for them, which the authors describe as a barrier to research for this group. The control group had only seven people and was deliberately smaller than the massage group; the authors say a larger trial would need equal groups. Control participants were promised abdominal massage training at the end of the study, which the authors describe as an incentive for them to stay in it. The standard constipation questionnaire could not be completed by most participants, so constipation severity was not measured reliably in this study. The study did not record what routine care involved, including any advice on diet, fluid intake or toileting plans, so the massage cannot be separated from everything else people were receiving. The reported improvements are self- or supporter-reported and come only from the group that received massage, and several people reported more than one change. Everyone in the sample had high support needs: 23 of the 31 had a severe or profound intellectual disability, only eight had no mobility problems and only three did not need support with toileting, so the findings may not fit adults with milder disability. The advisory group was made up of parents of people with an intellectual disability rather than adults with an intellectual disability themselves, which the authors say should change in future work.

Declared interests

Funded by the Baily Thomas Charitable Fund, a charity rather than a company selling the treatment. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The massage device used, MoWOOT, is named in the paper with its commercial website, the device training video and manual were adapted from the manufacturer's own website, and everyone who used a device during the study was allowed to keep it at the end.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the improvements the massage group reported as proof that abdominal massage works. They are self- or supporter-reported, they come only from the people who received massage, and no statistical comparison was made between the groups because the sample was too small. The control group's bowel diary numbers also changed over the six weeks, so a difference between the groups cannot be claimed.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →