Influence of Body Position on the Motor Development of Preterm Infants: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction

Preterm infants are a vulnerable group that is an increased risk of physical, neurological and cognitive problems whose severity is inversely proportional to gestational age and the quality of perinatal care.^1,2,3 Most of the outcomes in this group have psychosocial, emotional and economic impacts on the families, on society, and on the health system. ^4,5 Within this context, prematurity and low birth weight are biological risk factors for alterations in motor development, especially when the child is born at a gestational age less than 32 weeks and birth weight less than 1,500 g.⁶

For the acquisition of motor developmental milestones, it is important to stimulate newborns in body positions that require greater muscle strength against the action of gravity, such as the prone position.⁷ However, prone positioning after the newborn infant has been discharged home is avoided because it is associated with death from suffocation.⁸

The lack of attention to stimulating different body positions in newborn infants can compromise child development. Studies have shown an association between prone positioning only for short periods and delayed motor development.^9,10 It is known that Brazilian mothers seldom stimulate prone positioning and offer their lap a lot to their babies, giving them few opportunities to sit on the floor.^11,12 Thus, studies are needed to better understand this topic within the context of parental habits and practices.¹³

Attention to the development of children in the first years of life is essential since this period is characterized by major modifications and the acquisition of motor skills. The longitudinal follow-up of children using assessment scales allows the early identification of motor disorders and delays and enables early interventions. However, intervention and longitudinal studies of preterm infants in the outpatient setting are still sparse in Brazil.¹⁴

Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyze the influence of body position on the motor development of preterm infants in the first year of corrected age under home follow-up.

Method

This was a controlled, randomized, open trial. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University and is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry.

Results

During the study period, 45 preterm infants started longitudinal outpatient follow-up and 31 were eligible for the study. One infant was excluded during the intervention because of a diagnosis of Dandy-Walker syndrome. Thus, 30 preterm infants participated in this study.

The maternal characteristics are shown in Table 1. Antenatal corticosteroid use was the only variable that differed significantly between the groups studied, with 90.9% of mothers of the control group using corticosteroids (p = 0.05). There was no significant difference in the other maternal variables between the three groups.

Table 2 shows the main birth characteristics of the infants studied. No significant difference was observed between the three groups in any of the variables and the groups were therefore considered homogeneous. The mean gestational age of the preterm infants was 30.6±59 weeks and the mean birth weight was 1,367.5±413 kg.

Classification of the groups studied by the AIMS in the four assessments (Table 3) showed a significant difference in the third assessment (p = 0.02). In this assessment (8 months of age), the supine group exhibited the best motor development, with 80% of the infants being classified as normal. In the first assessment, all infants were classified as normal. The percentage of infants classified as suspicious and abnormal tended to increase over the phase of motor development Friedman’s test revealed that this increase was only significant in the control group (χ²=12.91, p<0.01). The Wilcoxon signed-ranks test indicated that, in the control group, there were significantly less infants classified as normal in the third AIMS assessment than in the first (Z=-2.71, p=0.01).

Figure 1 the trajectories of development of the different infants, displaying the changes of the final score in Alberta scale, in absolute values, along the four evaluations. The variability of the AIMS scores increases as infants grow older. In the first two evaluations, that all the preterm infants showed a motor development closer to the normal average than in the third and fourth evaluations, where AIMS values became much more disperse.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 1

Final Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) score of the 30 preterm infants in the four assessments. Friedman test. Wilcoxon post-hoc test.

The results of the stepwise multiple linear regressions identified different predictors of performance in the AIMS, depending on the moment of the motor assessment. Variables entered as possible predictors were: maternal age, gestational age, birth weight, birth length, head circumference, chest circumference, APGAR (first and fifth minutes), days with mechanical ventilation, days with breathing support (O2), days with continuous positive airway pressure, length of hospital stay, weight when the infant left the ICU, and weight when the infant left the hospital. No predictors were found for the first assessment. For the other three assessments the following predictors were found: second assessment - length of hospital stay (Beta=-0.52, p=0.02; R²=0.27); third assessment - birth weight (Beta=0.51, p=0.02; R²=0.26); forth assessment - maternal age (Beta=0.54, p=0.01; R²=0.29).

The analysis of the phone call records made during follow-up of the mothers showed that only two mothers (22.2%) of the prone group reported to have followed the instructions correctly at all times. The remaining mothers reported not to have followed the instructions because of fear of leaving the child in prone, because the child did not stay in the prone position or cried, because of lack of time since they had to care for the other children, and because they forgot to follow the instructions. Thus, most mothers did not follow the instructions on prone positioning. On the other hand, most of the mothers of the supine group (70%) correctly followed the instructions.

Discussion

The results showed that preterm infants achieved the motor developmental milestones within the first year of life. However, a larger number of infants were classified as suspicious or abnormal by the AIMS between 8 months and one year of corrected age. The strategy of providing guidance for caregivers was used so that preterm infants would receive motor stimulation at home. The number of infants with abnormal and suspicious motor development was higher in the group whose caregiver did not receive any guidance on motor stimulation compared to infants whose mothers received instructions.

Maternal guidance and training on the stimulation of motor development in preterm infants have been shown to result in positive outcomes for children. According to these authors, the results suggest that the support given to mothers may have contributed to their self-confidence, improving their ability to care for their children, and that the effective participation of mothers based on the instructions offered may have influenced the affective relationship with the infant, providing a greater stimulus for neurosensorimotor acquisition of the infant.¹⁸

In the present study, the 30 infants were classified as extremely preterm and very low birth weight, a fact explaining the mean length of hospital stay of 43.9 days for special care. In this respect, prolonged hospitalization is known to limit closer involvement of the parents with their infants. Another study involving very low birth weight preterm infants reported a mean length of stay of 60 days. According to the authors, the need for hospitalization of the infant alters family dynamics in an unexpected way since the parents have to deal with the emotions of hospitalization of the debilitated child. Possible complications may arise with the organization of daily routines to accompany the infant during hospitalization and with the preparation for discharge when the care will become the full responsibility of the parents.¹⁹

In an attempt to identify strategies designed to improve the development of preterm infants during longitudinal and home follow-up, the stimulation of body positioning has gained the attention of professionals as a protective practice for children. Prone positioning has shown some advantages for the cardiorespiratory system ²⁰ and for the child’s motor development. A recent study demonstrated that children who cannot maintain the prone position on extended arms have a disadvantage, exhibiting delayed development.²¹

Placing the infant in the prone position during waking hours is an uncommon practice among Brazilian mothers.^8,22 However, further studies are necessary to understand the reason for this parental practice. The present findings agree with previous studies reporting that many patients avoid placing their children in the prone position for play because the child is intolerant to this position, as demonstrated by crying. Consequently, the child is rarely exposed to this position.^10,23 These findings corroborate another study showing that 44% of the infants were intolerant to the prone position and spent less than 15 minutes in this position for play during their waking hours.²⁴

We understand that the time in the prone position is an important part of the daily routine of an infant and can be performed at different times over the day. Professionals must explain caregivers that the child may not tolerate the prone position on the first occasion and that the time can be gradually increased with increasing tolerance. To encourage the use of this position, the parents may talk and sing to the infant, use toys and mirrors, and maintain visual contact,²⁵ reinforcing a playful way as instructed in this study.

Although the mothers of this study did not follow the prescription correctly, the importance of guidance on body positioning for the child’s motor development should be reinforced in public child care programs so that it can be better understood and applied by caregivers. The present results showed no significant difference between all associations of the positions. However, from a clinical point of view, we emphasize that 63.1% of the children whose mothers received guidance on body positioning achieved normal motor development according to the AIMS in the first year of life. The percentage was only 45.4% in the group that did not receive any guidance, with a difference of 17.7% between the intervention and control groups.

At 12 months of chronological age, an association was observed between AIMS scores and the environmental variable in the group of preterm infants studied. The older the mother, the better was the motor development of the infant. Our findings agree with a study showing that older parents have greater knowledge of infant development, favoring the development of their child.²⁶ Another study following up 561 infants until 18 months of age demonstrated an association of environmental factors with motor development, especially in the second half of the first year of life.²⁷ The evidence reinforces the need for professional guidance on child development. On the other hand, the association of birth weight and length of hospital stay with AIMS scores was no longer observed at 12 months corrected age of the infants.