study saying cio is ok

[purplerose]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/10/letting-babies-cry-out-at-nighttime-is-ok/

[purplerose]

whoops, posted before i typed! so, now what? the "myths" of oxygen deprivation, maternal bond, independent children, it all was proven wrong. now there is scientific proof to help parents feel better about cio.

[Bokonon]

That's awful.  I don't think following the participants to age 6 is enough.  Are there attachment issues in adults who were left to CIO?  Increased medical problems or substance dependencies?

[crunchy_mommy]

Uhhh I think this is really misleading. This appears to be the abstract for the study referenced: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/09/04/peds.2011-3467

Maybe there are details within the full text (which I don't have access to, I'd really like to read it) that would clarify some points but what it sounds like is, they had 2 groups. One group received sleep advice, the other group didn't. It's not at all clear that one group practiced CIO and the other group didn't -- it sounds more like both groups did whatever they wanted, but one received more advice/training on CIO-type techniques. This doesn't necessarily mean they USED those techniques, and it doesn't sound like the control group necessarily DIDN'T use those techniques, they just weren't specifically trained in them. They may have been comparing apples to apples, for all we know.

And there are articles showing CIO to be harmful. Those can't just be thrown out the window based on one (possibly poorly-designed) study.

Here's the first study they did: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/3/e621.abstract

It really sounds like they are just studying the effectiveness & ramifications of a nurse spending 1-3 hours with these families talking about sleep interventions. I don't understand where the papers are getting "CIO isn't harmful."

[crunchy_mommy]

And even if this were actually studying what they say they are, they didn't study newborn-6mos (which is likely a particularly damaging time to do CIO) and following up 'til only age 6 just doesn't cut it for me.

[pek64]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/babies-left-to-cry-can-suffer-brain-damage-warns-parenting-guru-1950702.html

[purplerose]

i wish there were clear studies. another group is very happy about this and don't accept anything not a peer-reviewed journal for aap.

[pek64]

Back in May or June there was a thread that I think was describing this study and how it was done. I can't find it, now. Does anyone remember another study thread at the beginning of summer?

[mamazee]

I'm suspicious of studies that prove what the people studying probably wanted to prove. Also, I am skeptical of assessing "long term psychological damage" at age 6, and how they're measuring that. Same with the relationship - I think the way to know if a relationship is affected is by the relationship between the parents and children when the children are adults and no longer *need* the relationship -when they choose to be a part of the relationship or not.

[pek64]

I really wish I could find what I'm talking about!

What I recall is :

Parents were asked about the relationship
Children were tested on impulse control by being shown a treat, then the treat was placed under a cup and the child was told he/she could get it when the observer rang a bell. If the child waited and then got the treat that showed good impulse control. Getting it too soon (and possibly not at all) was a negative for impulse control.
Children were also tested on retention (memory) by putting 3 cups on the table, showing the child a sticker,putting it under a cup (child watching), then telling the child to get it. Failure to get the sticker was considered poor retention. Getting the sticker was good retention.

My son and I both felt it was a poorly conducted study. A child who didn't want a treat or sticker was marked as having sleep related brain development problems; and what parent is going to accurately, objectively provide attachment information! Parents are naturally subjective, and the level of attachment they have with their children is normal (one of the options).

I am not positive it is this study, but I'm pretty sure. It was Australia; the children were tested every month or couple of months; and it was related to how they slept (cry or not).

Edited to clarify that retention means how well they remember.

[marsupial-mom]

The major problem I have with that news story is that they say something like "when done at the right age and using the right methods" there isn't enough emphasis on what's considered "the right way."

I don't think cry it out is a good idea at any age, but there is still a big difference between doing it at 9 months vs doing it at 1 month. And everyone I talk to who supports it wants to do it on very young babies. The video clip I saw about it on MSNBC even showed newborns and commented on newborns, suggesting this method is ok for newborns. It's not!

It just really scares me whenever there's any promotion of the notion that newborns should sleep through the night, even implicit promotion such as the news story above. Even disregarding emotional development, forcing newborns to spend 8 hours every night without a feeding will impair their physical and intellectual development!
Edited by marsupial-mom - 9/11/12 at 1:48pm

[pek64]

The study started with 6 month olds because they asked for parents with 6momth olds who had 'sleep problems'. The method was either camping out (sitting in a chair beside the child and moving further away each night) and/or a variation of Ferber's method.

Unless it is a different study than the one I read about at the beginning of summer


I agree that a new parent reading the article may come to different conclusions.