Receiving touch is of critical importance, as many studies have shown that touch promotes mental and physical well-being. We conducted a pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022304281) systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis encompassing 137 studies in the meta-analysis and 75 additional studies in the systematic review (n = 12,966 individuals, search via Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science until 1 October 2022) to identify critical factors moderating touch intervention efficacy. Included studies always featured a touch versus no touch control intervention with diverse health outcomes as dependent variables. Risk of bias was assessed via small study, randomization, sequencing, performance and attrition bias. Touch interventions were especially effective in regulating cortisol levels (Hedges’ g = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.31) and increasing weight (0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) in newborns as well as in reducing pain (0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89), feelings of depression (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78) and state (0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84) or trait anxiety (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) for adults. Comparing touch interventions involving objects or robots resulted in similar physical (0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88 versus 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.64) but lower mental health benefits (0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.49 versus 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73). Adult clinical cohorts profited more strongly in mental health domains compared with healthy individuals (0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80 versus 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55). We found no difference in health benefits in adults when comparing touch applied by a familiar person or a health care professional (0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73 versus 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.61), but parental touch was more beneficial in newborns (0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88 versus 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.61). Small but significant small study bias and the impossibility to blind experimental conditions need to be considered. Leveraging factors that influence touch intervention efficacy will help maximize the benefits of future interventions and focus research in this field.

接受触摸至关重要，因为许多研究表明触摸可以促进身心健康。我们进行了预注册 (PROSPERO: CRD42022304281) 系统评价和多级荟萃分析，其中包括荟萃分析中的 137 项研究和系统评价中的 75 项其他研究（n  = 12,966 人，通过 Google Scholar、PubMed 和 Web of Science 搜索截至 2022 年 10 月 1 日）以确定调节触摸干预功效的关键因素。纳入的研究始终以触摸与非触摸控制干预为特色，并以不同的健康结果作为因变量。通过小型研究、随机化、测序、表现和损耗偏倚来评估偏倚风险。触摸干预对于调节新生儿皮质醇水平（Hedges g  = 0.78，95% 置信区间 (CI) 0.24 至 1.31）、增加体重（0.65，95% CI 0.37 至 0.94）以及减轻疼痛（0.69）特别有效。，95% CI 0.48 至 0.89）、抑郁情绪（0.59，95% CI 0.40 至 0.78）和状态（0.64，95% CI 0.44 至 0.84）或特质焦虑（0.59，95% CI 0.40 至 0.77）。比较涉及物体或机器人的触摸干预会产生相似的身体健康益处（0.56，95% CI 0.24 至 0.88 对比 0.51，95% CI 0.38 至 0.64），但心理健康益处较低（0.34，95% CI 0.19 至 0.49 对比 0.58，95% CI 0.43 至 0.73）。与健康个体相比，成人临床队列在心理健康领域的获益更大（0.63，95% CI 0.46 至 0.80 vs 0.37，95% CI 0.20 至 0.55）。当比较熟悉的人或医疗保健专业人员的触摸时，我们发现成人的健康益处没有差异（0.51，95％CI 0.29至0.73与0.50，95％CI 0.38至0.61），但父母的触摸对新生儿更有益（0.69，95% CI 0.50 至 0.88 对比 0.39，95% CI 0.18 至 0.61）。需要考虑小但显着的小研究偏差和盲实验条件的不可能。利用影响触摸干预功效的因素将有助于最大限度地发挥未来干预措施的效益并重点关注该领域的研究。