Interventions for child development based on the Touchpoints Model: scoping review.
Jéssica Batistela Vicente, Talita Cristina Pegorin, Ana Laura de Oliveira Santos and 1 others
PMID 37820222WHAT IT FOUND
Touchpoints-based interventions for child development, mostly delivered by nurses in primary care or home visits, reported increased parental understanding and improved parent-child interaction.
However, the interventions varied widely, making it impossible to identify which specific components caused these outcomes.
Key findings
01Interventions were predominantly delivered by nurses in primary care settings or during home visits, focusing on the period from pregnancy to three years of age.
02Participating parents demonstrated greater understanding of child development, increased interaction with their children, and more use of toys and learning materials.
03The variability in intervention design and content across the included studies prevented the identification of the most effective characteristics.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat 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
The review included a small number of studies (12), with three being protocols without results. There was significant heterogeneity in intervention design, content, and delivery, making it difficult to compare effectiveness or identify specific active ingredients. Descriptions of intervention fidelity and materials were often incomplete, hindering replication. Most studies were conducted in the United States and Portugal, which may limit generalizability to other contexts.
Declared interests
The study was financed in part by CAPES and CNPq, Brazilian government funding agencies. No commercial conflicts of interest were declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that any specific Touchpoints intervention is proven effective for all child development outcomes. The review found positive results across varied studies, but the lack of standardized protocols means it is unclear which components drove the improvements.