Can Parents' Gentle Movement Exercises Help a Premature Baby's Development? A Careful Study Says: Worth Studying, Not Yet Proven

A plain-language look at the GeMo-Support trial (Badura & Wellmann, Pediatric Research 2026), which taught parents to do movement therapy with their very premature babies

A team of researchers in Germany taught parents of very premature babies a set of gentle, guided movement exercises and asked them to practise three times a day for ten weeks, hoping this would help their children's development. When they compared these babies with a group receiving ordinary care, the two groups developed about the same by age two, and the parents' mental health was similar as well. The exercises were safe and doable, and families felt supported, but this particular study — which was small — found no proof that the therapy improved outcomes. The researchers concluded it is a promising idea that deserves a larger, more focused trial before anyone can say it works.

Why This Question Matters

Babies born very early — before 32 weeks of pregnancy, or weighing less than about 1500 grams (roughly 3.3 pounds) — face a long road. Thanks to decades of progress in newborn intensive care, far more of these babies survive than in the past. But survival is only part of the story. The delicate brain of a premature baby is still under construction at birth, and about one in five very premature children reaches age two with some difficulty in thinking or movement, sometimes with challenges that continue into the school years and beyond [1], [2]. Naturally, parents and clinicians want to know: is there something we can do, early on, to help the brain develop as well as possible?

How Families and Clinicians Used to Face This

For a long time, there was little to offer beyond watchful waiting and standard therapy sessions. Parents often felt like bystanders, watching monitors and waiting for milestones, unsure whether anything they did could change their baby's path. Over the past twenty years, two ideas began to shift that picture. First, doctors learned to "read" the spontaneous wriggling movements that all healthy babies make — called general movements — as an early clue to how the brain is developing; unusual patterns can flag a higher risk of problems like cerebral palsy months before any formal diagnosis [3]. Second, experts increasingly believed that help should start as early as possible, while the brain is most adaptable, and that parents — not just therapists — should be at the centre of that help [4]. A small pilot study had suggested that gently guiding a baby through natural movement patterns might nudge development in a good direction [5]. The study we're describing here set out to test that idea properly, with parents doing the work.

What the Researchers Did

The trial, run at a hospital in Regensburg, Germany, enrolled 66 very premature babies and used a coin-toss-style method to sort them into two groups [6]. One group got usual care. The other group's parents were trained by a children's physiotherapist to do "general movement-based therapy": gentle, guided exercises imitating the natural movements babies make, accompanied by music composed for premature infants. These parents were asked to practise three times a day for ten weeks. The exercises started in the hospital, at around 34 weeks (adjusting for the early birth), and continued at home after the baby was discharged, with weekly video calls from the physiotherapist for support. To see whether it helped, the researchers checked the babies' movement quality at 3–5 months and gave them a well-known developmental test — measuring thinking, language, and motor skills — at about two years of age. They also checked in on the parents' mental wellbeing along the way.

What They Found

The main result was simple and honest: the babies who received the movement therapy developed no better, on average, than the babies who did not. Their movement scores at a few months old were essentially identical, and their thinking, language, and motor scores at two years were statistically the same in both groups [6]. Looking only at babies who had started out with normal or slightly unusual movements, the therapy still made no measurable difference.

There was one small, curious bright spot. Three babies had the most worrying movement pattern at the start — and all three happened to be in the therapy group. All three went on to develop well. That is a hopeful hint that the babies with the clearest early signs of trouble might be exactly the ones who could benefit. But three children is far too few to draw any conclusion; it is a lead for future research, not an answer [4].

Two other findings are worth knowing. First, keeping up three sessions a day turned out to be genuinely hard. On average, families managed far fewer sessions than the plan called for, and only a handful kept up the full amount. Parents said they felt supported and empowered, but everyday life — feeding, other appointments, the baby's own moods — got in the way. Interestingly, the families who did more therapy tended to have babies with slightly better language scores later, which fits with other research suggesting that how much therapy a baby actually gets can matter [7], [8]. Second, mothers in the therapy group felt a little worse emotionally right around the time of discharge — probably from the added pressure of the daily routine — but this evened out within a few months [9]. It is a reminder that adding a demanding home task, however well-intentioned, can weigh on already-stretched parents.

What This Means for Families

If your baby was born very early, the most useful takeaway is a balanced one. This kind of parent-led movement therapy is safe, and many families found it a meaningful way to feel actively involved in their baby's care. But this study did not show that it improves how children develop, so it should not be sold to anyone as a guaranteed boost. If a program like this is offered to you, it is reasonable to try it for the sense of connection and involvement it can bring — while keeping expectations realistic and not blaming yourself if the three-times-a-day schedule proves impossible. Your own wellbeing matters too, and it is completely fair to ask for a lighter, more sustainable plan and for support with your own mental health during the exhausting weeks around discharge [9], [10].

It also helps to understand why the study came out the way it did. It was small, and it included very premature babies whether or not they showed any early signs of a movement problem — so most of the babies were developing typically and had little room to improve. And because the daily exercises were hard to keep up, the therapy may never have been given a full chance to work [5], [8]. A "no difference" result in a study like this means "we couldn't detect a benefit here," not "we proved it doesn't help."

It can also be reassuring to know that this single study is not the last word, and that it fits a larger pattern researchers already recognise. Across many trials, hands-on therapy for premature babies tends to show helpful short-term effects — steadier movements, calmer behaviour — while proof of lasting benefit years later has been harder to pin down and seems to depend a great deal on which babies receive it and how much they actually get [8], [10]. In other words, the idea behind this therapy is sound and grounded in how the developing brain works; what remains uncertain is the practical recipe — who benefits, how much practice is enough, and how to make that practice fit into a real family's day without adding strain. Those are answerable questions, and they are exactly what the next round of research aims to tackle.

What Researchers Are Working On Next

The scientists behind this trial are clear about the path forward. The next studies should be larger and more focused — likely concentrating on the babies who show early signs of movement difficulty, since they may be the ones most able to benefit, and finding a realistic amount of therapy that families can actually sustain [11]. Researchers are also exploring simple blood tests that measure proteins released when brain cells are stressed; in this study those markers lined up with babies' movement patterns and later development, and one day they might help doctors spot which babies need the most support [12]. For now, the honest and hopeful summary is this: guiding your premature baby through gentle movement is safe and can feel deeply meaningful, and science is still working out whether — and for whom — it truly changes the road ahead.

References

  1. Inder TE, Volpe JJ, Anderson PJ. Defining the neurologic consequences of preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2023;389:441–453. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2303347 ↩
  2. McBryde M, Fitzallen GC, Liley HG, Taylor HG, Bora S. Academic outcomes of school-aged children born preterm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e202027. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2027 ↩
  3. Novak I, et al. Early, accurate diagnosis and early intervention in cerebral palsy: advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:897. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1689 ↩
  4. Morgan C, et al. Early intervention for children aged 0 to 2 years with or at high risk of cerebral palsy: International Clinical Practice Guideline based on systematic reviews. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175:846–858. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.0878 ↩
  5. Soloveichick M, et al. Movement imitation therapy for preterm babies (MIT-PB): a novel approach to improve the neurodevelopmental outcome of infants at high-risk for cerebral palsy. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2020;32:587–598. doi:10.1007/s10882-019-09707-y ↩
  6. Badura A, Dietz A, Zeman F, et al. General movement based therapy to support neurodevelopment of preterm infants: a randomized clinical trial. Pediatr Res. 2026. doi:10.1038/s41390-025-04734-2 ↩
  7. Øberg GK, et al. Effects of a parent-administered exercise program in the neonatal intensive care unit: dose does matter — a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2020;100:741. doi:10.1093/ptj/pzaa014 ↩
  8. Hughes AJ, Redsell SA, Glazebrook C. Motor development interventions for preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2016;138:e20160147. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-0147 ↩
  9. Alkozei A, McMahon E, Lahav A. Stress levels and depressive symptoms in NICU mothers in the early postpartum period. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27:1738–1743. doi:10.3109/14767058.2014.942626 ↩
  10. Khurana S, Kane AE, Brown SE, Tarver T, Dusing SC. Effect of neonatal therapy on the motor, cognitive, and behavioral development of infants born preterm: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2020;62:684–692. doi:10.1111/dmcn.14485 ↩
  11. De Bruyn N, Hanssen B, Mailleux L, Van Den Broeck C, Samijn B. Early intervention including an active motor component in preterms with varying risks for neuromotor delay: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Clin Med. 2025;14:1364. doi:10.3390/jcm14041364 ↩
  12. Goeral K, et al. Early life serum neurofilament dynamics predict neurodevelopmental outcome of preterm infants. J Neurol. 2021;268:2570–2577. doi:10.1007/s00415-021-10429-5 ↩