Effect of Tactile Experience During Preterm Infant Feeding on Clinical Outcomes.
Rita H Pickler, Jareen Meinzen-Derr, Margo Moore and 2 others
PMID 32555011WHAT IT FOUND
The assigned tactile feeding package did not shorten time to first oral, full oral, or discharge.
But touch during over 25% of early gavage feedings was linked to faster full oral feeding: 38 versus 18 days.
Key findings
01The randomized tactile feeding package did not differ significantly from usual care on days from first gavage to first oral feeding (27.7 vs 31.2), first oral to full oral feeding (10.3 vs 13.1), or first oral to discharge (28.4 vs 31.5).
02Receiving touch during more than 25% of early gavage feedings was associated with reaching full oral feeding sooner; infants below the 25th percentile for touch averaged 38 days from first to full oral feeding versus 18 days for infants above the 75th percentile.
03Holding during early gavage was not associated with faster full oral feeding, and touch during transition feedings was not associated; holding during transition was associated with shorter time when it occurred between 25% and 75% of feedings.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPsWhat it means for RNs
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.
What it does not show
Of 120 infants enrolled, 91 were analysed in this per-protocol report, so missing infants could change the result. The randomized group comparison was null, and the positive finding comes from a secondary analysis of how much touch each infant received, not from the assigned intervention package. The study may be underpowered to detect effects of the intervention. The intervention was delivered almost exclusively by trained study nurses, so it may not show what ordinary unit staff or parents would do. Control infants still received touch during 16.4% of gavage feedings, which blurs the contrast between groups. The two NICUs did not use infant-directed oral feeding protocols, and one had limited developmental care, so results may not apply where cue-based feeding is routine.
Declared interests
The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The article is listed as research supported by NIH extramural funding.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that touch alone reliably speeds oral feeding or discharge. The randomized package included touch, holding, nonnutritive sucking, parent participation, and breast milk use, and the group comparison was null. The positive result is a secondary dose association, not proof of a single component.