or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Co-sleeping and the Family Bed › New Study from University of Glasgow on co-sleeping and the risk of SIDS.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Study from University of Glasgow on co-sleeping and the risk of SIDS. - Page 2

post #21 of 49
Here's the link www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday188.htm
post #22 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeslynb
Flame away if you like - I am just passing along the article. I happen to find it compelling, but then, I don't subscribe to any of the current "movements" in infant-care (AP or otherwise).

Here is the link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...685210,00.html

If you don't like alternative parenting, why would you be attracted to this forum?
post #23 of 49
50-70% of babies co-sleep either all of the time or sometimes

2,700 babies die each year from SIDS;

90% of SIDS deaths are crib sleeping infants - only 10% of these cases are co-sleeping infants
(That is well over 2000 SIDS deaths per year related to sleeping in a crib)

Japan has the lowest rate of SIDS in the world. Japanese babies routinely share their parent's beds (McKenna 1998)
post #24 of 49
I searched pubmed and Journal of Pediatrics and could not find the study the article is supposedly quoting. I can't take any article seriously until I have read the study myself. Too often reporters get the facts mixed up. Not only did the reporter not give his name, but did not give the source for his (erroneous) information. How in the world someone could find such an article "compelling" is beyond my comprehension. I never take just one person's word for anything, I would much rather look up the evidence myself and make an educated decision.
post #25 of 49
The article is coming out in the July issue, which has not yet been posted to the website.

This particular researcher (Dr. David Tappin) has published these sort of retrospective 'analysis' papers before (where he takes a group of infant deaths and tries to figure out trends), and got dismissed when he suggested a used crib mattress increases the risk of SIDS. Why? The critics said these sorts of retrospective studies don't fully control for other factors that might actually be the cause. Same with this study. Poor controls means you really can't conclude anything.

Here's one of them: http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/509998.html

The most ridiculous thing about the new study is this:
Quote:
Only 11 percent of the infants were reported to routinely sleep in their parents' bed. But, 52 percent of the babies had shared a bed, cot,couch or other surface at some point during the day or night that they died.
So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.
post #26 of 49
Well, I have to thank the OP for giving me an opportunity to read good and bad research on co-sleeping. I have found nothing compelling about the research showing negative effects of co-sleeping.
Quote:
So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.
Serious problems with this research.
post #27 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagomom
So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
post #28 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagomom
The most ridiculous thing about the new study is this:

So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.
Oh good lord.
post #29 of 49
oops, meant to post a new thread, sorry.
post #30 of 49
this is one of the most poorly designed "studies" I have ever seen!

Soooooo many confounds, no correlations and certainly no causal relationships can be established.

1. extremely small sample
2.
Quote:
However, only 11 percent of infants regularly slept in their parents' bed
. so this study is not representative of parents who co-sleep on a regular basis.
3. poorly defined operational definition of co-sleeping- includes couch sleeping which we all know is not safe...
4. does not control for other factors such as immunization status

I'm an undergrad and even I would get an F on that study- these people are supposed to be professional researchers...

Quote:
So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.
oh the logic! that's like saying that if I ate a salad that day and later died choking on a french fry that eating the salad caused or contributed to my death...
post #31 of 49
That a compelling article, it is the same wording that all articles done by people against co-sleeping have written. We had a woman in our La Leche League group that works for Health and Welfare and part of her job is to research research and co-sleeping was one of the things she did research on and she said there none of the studies show that it is dangerous to co-sleep unless you are under the influence of something sedating. Furthermore, to be valid research it must be unbiased and they need to outline how they did the studies, and tell whether the parents regularly expose their children to other things that lead to SIDS, like cigarette smoke even if it is just on people's clothes, pollutants, etc... in addittion to co-sleeping, and they didn't do any of these things. And if you are so against attachment parenting and co-sleeping (which are ancient parenting techniques done in "uncivilized" societies where children have value) why are you on a parenting site that is all for closeness and bonding and being gentle with their children.
post #32 of 49
I thought I read somewhere that the JOP was connected to some major crib manufacturers... making the study a bit biased perhaps?
ETA : nevermind i think im thinking of the JMPA :LOL
post #33 of 49
I've only skimmed the replies, but I just thought I'd mention this...

I live just south of Glasgow, and I work with moms with drug/alcohol dependencies and their children. Almost all of these moms will co-sleep with their infants - it is part of their culture (mostly because it is easier, which we'd all agree with!).

Almost no one else I know here in this area co-sleeps with their children. And they look at me like I have two heads if it ever comes up that I co-slept with my babies.

Given that background, I would be very interested in/suspicious about the group of parents who were used in this study who were co-sleeping. I'm guessing there is a fairly good chance there were other factors contributing to the cot deaths, rather than the co-sleeping.
post #34 of 49
Quote:
So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.
WTF is that supposed to mean?!? :

Idiotic comment
post #35 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsMoe
50-70% of babies co-sleep either all of the time or sometimes

2,700 babies die each year from SIDS;

90% of SIDS deaths are crib sleeping infants - only 10% of these cases are co-sleeping infants
(That is well over 2000 SIDS deaths per year related to sleeping in a crib)

Japan has the lowest rate of SIDS in the world. Japanese babies routinely share their parent's beds (McKenna 1998)
Actually, its Singapore, I looked it up :LOL (Either way, still not sure why?Does anyone here know much about parenting practices in Singapore?)

I agree with many pp, this article is pretty skimpy. I mean, I had to read it about three times, thinking I missed something, and scanned to the end of the page looking for the rest of the article!
Not going to change what I do anyways.
Tannis
Shekinah 5/10/04(I co-sleep, and LOOK! I'm still alive!)
post #36 of 49

This is almost too funny

If it weren't so pathetically sad, it would be funny.

"The researchers found that 90 percent of the babies died while sleeping at night. Only 11 percent of the infants were reported to routinely sleep in their parents' bed. But, 52 percent of the babies had shared a bed, cot,couch or other surface at some point during the day or night that they died."

This is the same researcher who believes, steadfastly, that "germs" in a previously slept on mattress somehow account for some SIDS deaths.

AND of course, the media is all over this touting how it "shows" that co-sleeping is dangerous.

Did you know that you can "prove" statistically that the number of televisions per capita in a country is directly related to the average life expectancy?? We did it as an exercise in our stats class a few years back to explore the fallacy of "causality" in statistical data. It is important to remember that you can't use statistics to "prove" anything. The two factors MAY be related, or may BOTH be related to some other unknown factor.

Remember there are lies, darned lies, and statistics.

;-)

I personally think this researcher is a nut. Sad thing is that we parents who co-sleep are considered to be MORE nuts. Strange but true.

His logic is GREAT for the mattress industry since it suggests we all ought to buy new mattresses for each baby to avoid all those nasty "germs". Or maybe we should just all get rid of all mattresses and sleep on the floor??

How funny that this comes up and up again and again in countries where we are SOOOOO wealthy we can afford separate rooms and beds for our progeny.

I am NOT against crib sleeping... you can sleep with your baby or not and it means nothing to me... but studies like this are simply rediculous, and the fact that the media just LOVES to tout these studies in every press release imaginable and make parents "afraid" makes me want to cry.
post #37 of 49

And what, exactly, is a "surface"

The more I read this, the more it makes me laugh and be angry at the same time. The parents had shared "some other surface" with their infants?? The floor?? The wall? The table? The surface of the Earth? How can he POSSIBLY believe that sharing some surface DURING THE DAY is somehow related at all to SIDS death at some other time. Keep in mind that these babies were NOT sleeping with their parents when they died. The paper does not imply that they were. Just that they had, at SOME point during the day, slept "on some surface" with one of the parents. Oh yeah, and that was only 52%. 48% DIDN'T sleep "on some surface" with a parent. In most small studies such a difference would not be statistically relevant.

There is such a HUGE need for parents to have accurate information on something like SIDS. Why they let studies like this one plug up medical journals I'll never understand.

Gesh. I guess I'll just have to read the darned thing myself now.
post #38 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by neverdoingitagain
Actually, its Singapore, I looked it up :LOL (Either way, still not sure why?Does anyone here know much about parenting practices in Singapore?)

I agree with many pp, this article is pretty skimpy. I mean, I had to read it about three times, thinking I missed something, and scanned to the end of the page looking for the rest of the article!
Not going to change what I do anyways.
Tannis
Shekinah 5/10/04(I co-sleep, and LOOK! I'm still alive!)
Totally OT, but a very good friend of mine from high school is named Shekinah and I never thought I would see another in my life. She'll be so thrilled.
post #39 of 49
Here's the press release I found:

===========================================


Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the leading reason given for death among infants one month to one year old. Studies have shown that sharing a bed with parents who smoke increases the risk of SIDS. A study in the July issue of The Journal of Pediatrics found a relationship between SIDS and bedsharing among infants less than 11 weeks old, even if parents are non-smokers.




(I-Newswire) - David Tappin, MD, MPH and colleagues from University of Glasgow and Ecob Consulting evaluated 123 cases of SIDS in Scotland between 1996 and 2000. The parents of these infants provided information about the baby's exposure to smoking, the parents' routine infant-care practices, and the day or night of their infant's death. The researchers found that 90% of the babies died while sleeping at night. Only 11% of the infants were reported to routinely sleep in their parents' bed. 52% of the babies, however, had shared a bed/cot/couch or other surface at some point during the day or night that they died; of these, 87% were found in their parents' beds.

A relationship exists between SIDS, bedsharing, couchsharing, and the location of the infants when they died; this association is magnified when the babies are less than 11 weeks old, regardless of how long they shared a sleep surface, their proximity to parents, their location in the bed, or their exposure to smoke. 72% of the infants found in their parents' bed and 57% of the infants who shared a couch when they died were less than 11 weeks old. In this study, sleeping in a separate room did not increase the risk of SIDS, unless the parents were smokers.

Although SIDS cannot be prevented, parents can take precautions to reduce their infant's risk by stopping smoking during and after pregnancy and placing their infant on his/her back to sleep. Sharing a couch to sleep, sleeping in a room alone, and sleeping in bed with parents are also associated with increased risk. Sleeping between parents may put extra stress on the infant and could position the baby too close to or underneath pillows or blankets. Dr. Tappin reminds caregivers of the advice given by the U.K. Department of Health: "The safest place for your baby to sleep is in a cot [crib] in your room for the first six months."


###
The study is reported in "Bedsharing, roomsharing, and sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland: A case-control study" by David Tappin, MD, MPH, Russell Ecob, SCRT STAT, MSc, and Hazel Brooke, MA. The article appears in The Journal of Pediatrics, Volume 147, Number 1 ( July 2005 ), published by Elsevier.
post #40 of 49
It's been a long time since I've taken a statistics course, but isn't it misleading to only look at babies who actually died from SIDS in your "sample"?

If you look at 100 babies, 70 who co-sleep exclusively, 10 who co-sleep sometimes, and 20 who always sleep alone........ then 10 die from SIDS, 3 co-sleepers, 4 sometimes co-sleepers, and 3 loners......... you could say that 70% of SIDS deaths happened to babies that co-sleep at least part of the time, more than double the rate of those that never co-slept. BUT, when compared to the entire sample, only 4% of co-sleeping babies died of SIDS, compared to 40% of sometimes co-sleepers and 15% of babies that always slept alone............
so, is this study really telling us anything if it doesn't compare the deaths to the general population?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Co-sleeping and the Family Bed
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Co-sleeping and the Family Bed › New Study from University of Glasgow on co-sleeping and the risk of SIDS.