The soothing sensation of a hug or a gentle touch is a familiar experience. But can touch truly improve our well-being, and does the source and manner of touch matter? To address these questions, a team of seasoned researchers from the Social Brain Lab at the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience and the University Hospital Essen conducted a meticulous analysis of touch intervention studies, bringing their unique expertise to the field.
The impact of touch on mental and physical health is significant. It’s a straightforward question to pose but more complex to answer. Individual studies concentrate on specific scenarios and sometimes present conflicting conclusions. A more precise answer emerges by amalgamating all these studies in a large-scale analysis: touch markedly enhances physical and mental well-being. This includes reductions in pain, anxiety, depression, and stress in adults. Interestingly, those with physical or mental health issues—who are most in need of support—derive even more significant benefits from touch than healthy adults. “This is particularly pertinent considering how often touch interventions are disregarded,” notes Packheiser, the lead author.
Professor Keysers, director of the Social Brain Lab, highlights a crucial aspect of their study: “We aimed to leverage the hundreds of individual studies to determine which type of touch is most effective. What if you don’t have a friend or partner nearby to hug you? Would touch from a stranger or even a machine also be beneficial? And how often?” The study conclusively shows that while touch can be optimized, the most significant factors are only sometimes those we might anticipate.
Interestingly, the individual delivering the touch, the manner of touch, and the duration do not significantly impact its effectiveness. A prolonged massage by a therapist could be as beneficial as a brief hug from a friend. However, the frequency of the intervention plays a critical role. A frequently offered quick hug could be more impactful than a massage if administered more often.
The subsequent inquiry focused on whether the touch intervention needs to be human. The findings reveal that interventions using objects or robots can be just as effective in enhancing physical well-being. “There are many individuals in need of wellbeing improvements, possibly due to loneliness or clinical conditions. These results suggest that a touch-robot, or even a simple weighted blanket, has the potential to assist these individuals,” explains Michon, the last author. However, the effectiveness of robot and object interventions is lesser for mental wellbeing. Disorders like anxiety and depression might require a human touch, possibly indicating the importance of an emotional component associated with touch, Michon suggests.
The researchers also expressed curiosity about human-to-animal contact, although studies in this area still need to be completed. “It would be beneficial to explore whether an animal’s or pet’s touch could enhance wellbeing and if they benefit from it too. Unfortunately, there are not enough studies, or adequately controlled ones, to draw any broad conclusions on these topics,” Michon adds.
When examining the effects of touch on newborns, the team discovered that newborns benefit significantly from touch. However, the identity of the person administering the touch matters more: the benefits are more significant when provided by a parent rather than a healthcare worker. “This finding could be impactful,” says Packheiser. “In some countries, death rates from premature births are high, and knowing that a baby benefits more from the touch of their own parent provides another readily implementable form of support for the baby’s health.”
The need for more studies made it challenging to conclude children and teenagers. “Large-scale studies like this not only help us draw more general conclusions but also pinpoint where research is lacking,” Michon points out. “We hope our findings will guide future research to explore lesser-known areas, including animal touch, touch across different ages, and specific clinical settings, like in patients with autism, another group that has not been extensively studied.”
More information: Julian Packheiser et al, A systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis of the physical and mental health benefits of touch interventions, Nature Human Behaviour. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01841-8
Journal information: Nature Human Behaviour Provided by Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience
