Clinical Effect Of Comprehensive Ultra-Early Intervention On The Development Of High-Risk Infant

Objective:To explore the clinical effect of comprehensive early intervention on the development of nervous system in high-risk infants.Methods:A total of 90 high-risk infants admitted to the Department of Neonatology and Pediatrics of Pingxiang Maternal and Child Health Hospital in Jiangxi Province from January 2021 to December 2021 were randomly divided into routine intervention control group,routine early intervention group 1,and comprehensive ultra early intervention group 2,each with 30 cases.The control group was given routine intervention,while the intervention group 1 was given visual,auditory,and tactile interventions based on the control group.The intervention group 2 was given comprehensive ultra-early intervention techniques such as kangaroo care,oral function,motor sensory function and cardiopulmonary function based on the intervention group1.After four weeks of intervention,the neonatal neurobehavioral(NBNA)scores before and after intervention,the Alberta Exercise Scale(AIMS)scores before and at 3 months of age,the results of the first and third stages of overall motor quality(GMs)assessments,the motor development quotient of the Peabody at 8 and 12 months of age,and the functional area development quotient of the Gesell Development Scale at 8 and 12 months of age were statistically analyzed for the three groups of children.Results:There were no significant differences in the normality rates of NBNA scores,AIMS scores,and the first stage GMs evaluation results among the three groups before intervention(P>0.05);After intervention,the NBNA score,3-month old AIMS score,and the third stage GMs evaluation results of the three groups of children were compared as follows: the NBNA score of intervention group 2 was higher than that of intervention group 1,and the NBNA score of intervention group 1 was higher than that of the control group,with a statistically significant difference(P<0.05);The AIMS score of intervention group 2 was higher than that of intervention group 1,and the AIMS score of intervention group 1 was higher than that of control group,with a statistically significant difference(P<0.05);The normal rate of GMs results at the third stage in the intervention group 2 was higher than that in the control group,with a statistically significant difference(P<0.05);Three groups of children were followed up to 8 and 12 months of age for Peabody motor development assessment.Gross motor development quotient,fine motor development quotient,and total motor development quotient were higher in intervention group 2 than in intervention group1,and higher in intervention group 1 than in control group.The difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);Three groups of children were followed up to 8 months of age.Gesell’s major motor development quotient,fine motor development quotient,and adaptive development quotient were higher in intervention group 2 than in control group,while intervention group 1 was higher than in control group,with a statistically significant difference(P<0.05).Gesell’s language development quotient and personal social behavior development quotient had no statistically significant difference(P>0.05);The three groups of children were followed up to 12 months of age.Gesell’s developmental quotient of large motor,fine motor,and adaptive motor development quotient were higher in the intervention group 2 than in the intervention group 1,and the developmental quotient in the intervention group 1 was higher than in the control group.The difference was statistically significant(P>0.05).Conclusion:Comprehensive ultra early intervention techniques can more effectively promote the development of the nervous system of high-risk infants,with significant effects on the neurobehavioral,gross motor,fine motor,and adaptive development of high-risk infants,but no significant effects on the language development and personal social behavior development of high-risk infants.