New Study from University of ******* on co-sleeping and the risk of SIDS. - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-08-2005, 02:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
Jeslynb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Jeslynb is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-08-2005, 02:48 PM
ber
 
ber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: US
Posts: 852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That's always a reassuring way to start a post...

I would wonder if you were lost, but the very fact that you referred to flames right of the bat convinces me otherwise.

What exactly about this article is compelling?

M, mom to DS1 (8 yrs), DS2 (5 yrs), and DS3 (2 yrs).

ber is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 02:54 PM
 
Llyra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 9,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't see how it is compelling-- it doesn't describe the study, or the nature of the evidence, or the researchers' findings, AT ALL. I would be willing to thoughtfully consider EVIDENCE, but this doesn't mean anything to me.

me knit.gif, he bikenew.gif, my three reading.gif, sleepytime.gif, and fairy.gif-- and the one we lost angel2.gif
Llyra is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 02:56 PM
ber
 
ber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: US
Posts: 852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wanted to add - I've read that snippet of an article about 5 times now, and I still feel like I'm missing something. Maybe if there were more facts presented, I'd feel like I understood what's being said.

Quote:
John McClure, chairman of the Scottish Cot Death Trust, said: “Until recently it was thought that bedsharing was a risk only if parents were smokers.
This part jumped out at me because there are a lot other factors beyond smoking that interfere with the safety of co-sleeping, such as co-sleeping while taking certain medications or while under the influence of alcohol.

It's just a strange article in general. It seems like it's trying to be anti-co-sleeping, yet it doesn't seem to have all the facts, and it also says that "the risk diminishes sharply" after the first 3 months - so to me it almost sounds like more of a "be extra cautious the first 11 weeks" more than "don't ever do it."

M, mom to DS1 (8 yrs), DS2 (5 yrs), and DS3 (2 yrs).

ber is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 02:57 PM
ber
 
ber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: US
Posts: 852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by llyra
I don't see how it is compelling-- it doesn't describe the study, or the nature of the evidence, or the researchers' findings, AT ALL. I would be willing to thoughtfully consider EVIDENCE, but this doesn't mean anything to me.
exactly.

M, mom to DS1 (8 yrs), DS2 (5 yrs), and DS3 (2 yrs).

ber is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 02:59 PM
 
AllyRae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 6,192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hmmmm...first off, I thought the risk of SIDS was greatest from 3-6 months? This article states otherwise. Second, it's old news that smoking/drinking increases the risk of SIDS/suffocation/entrapment. That's been shown in co-sleeping research for years...

I'd like to see a citation of the actual article. I've done a lot of research into co-sleeping for my master's degree and after 2 years of research, I have only found *one* study that conclusively showed that "co-sleeping was dangerous" and it turned out that study was funded by the JPSC and considered sleeping in a recliner as co-sleeping. Of course, that's the study cited by anti-cosleeping resources. The study was poorly conducted and the results skewed.

So, in order to determine the legitimacy of the article, the full study needs to be seen...how did they research it, what was considered co-sleeping, what was considered SIDS (MANY studies attempt to classify entrapment, suffocation, etc. as SIDS, and it's not), who funded the study, and how big was the sample?

This article doesn't say anything new...most people know that safe co-sleeping means no smoking or drinking...

~Brandon Michael (11/23/03), Jocelyn Lily Nữ (2/4/07, adopted 5/28/07 from Vietnam), Amelia Rylie (1/14/09), & Ryland Josef William (9/7/05-9/7/05 @ 41 wks). 
AllyRae is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 03:00 PM
 
flitters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Welcome to MDC!

That was a very small article... makes it difficult to say whether or not the study itself was compelling. I searched the Journal of Pediatrics (possibly the wrong one?) and couldn't find the study. I also went to the site for the Scottish Cot Death Trust but couldn't find a reference to it there either. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just would like to see the study, rather than just a very short article about it. It is interesting and often very informative to see how the studies are conducted. It also struck me that the conclusion was drawn for babies under 11 weeks, especially when earlier studies have shown the mean age of SI death in non-bedsharing infants to be 12.7 weeks while in bedsharing infants to be 9.1 weeks (see link below).

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ode=pediatrics

By the way, I don't think it was your intention, but beginning you post with "Flame away" seems slightly inflammatory. Also, your comment about AP and "current 'movements' in infant-care" reads in a slightly condescending way by categorizing then trivializing the parenting philosophy most people on this board embrace. A lot can be lost in non-face-to-face communication...

Anyway, thank you for sharing the pointer to this article. I hope people join in this thread - infant studies are so interesting to discuss.

eta, I type slowly. People *have* joined this thread in the meanwhile!!!

me dh ds1 (11/04) ds2 (7/10) and
flitters is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 03:57 PM
 
nancy926's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: where we always need more bookcases
Posts: 2,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Not impressed by the study. Small sample size, and they defined "bedsharing" to also include cots and couches, of all things. Sleeping w/a baby on a king-sized bed is worlds apart from sleeping w/one on a COUCH.

Also not sure what current "movement" the OP is referring to. Bedsharing? It's been going on for centuries, and in some countries is the norm, rather than an exception that some researchers have to constantly try to shoot down as being "unsafe".

A writer/runner/thinker/wife with two daughters (11/02 and 8/05), one dog, three cats, seven fish, and a partridge in a pear tree... in Vermont.
nancy926 is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 04:24 PM
 
flitters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nancy926
Not impressed by the study. Small sample size, and they defined "bedsharing" to also include cots and couches, of all things.
Did you find the study mentioned in the OP or is this the study from my post above? The above study wasn't so much about "is bedsharing safe" as it was a study about age (and other factors) at death. There was no attempt to control or compare *numbers* of bedsharing deaths (30 in that study) versus *numbers* of non-bedsharing deaths (54 in that study). I just mentioned it because of the limited scope of the conclusion in the OP (babies < 11 weeks).

Ummm, sorry for the tangent.

Still curious if anyone has the text of the study.

Been reading "Three in a Bed" lately, so this kind of thing is even more on my mind than normal.


me dh ds1 (11/04) ds2 (7/10) and
flitters is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 05:21 PM
 
InochiZo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NWxSE
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I also looked at the study. I agree that the study is small and that the definition of "bedsharing" may be large. I also wonder what the definition of SIDs is for this study. To determine factors in "parental bedsharing in SIDS-like deaths." It sounds like they are determined by the coroner, which would not have any consistency/interrater reliability. Under the limitations section it states:
"We believe that our study provides additional evidence that the spectrum of deaths classified under the rubric of "SIDS" is not a single entity...Furthermore, although it may be desirable to designate these deaths as SIDS and thus provide comforting reassurance to the parents, misclassification compromises pursuit of the causes of true SIDS."
Another limitation is that the sociecomic status of the people used is low. I don't agree with the authors about the "causation" factors found in this study based on the limitations provided.
I like another article that popped up on the Journal of Peds seach on co-sleeping earlier research on co-sleeping.
How Good is the Evidence?

Good Co-sleeping to you all!!!
InochiZo is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 05:26 PM
 
InochiZo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NWxSE
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Bedsharing Promotes Breastfeeding
It also talks about a reduction in SIDs with bedsharing.
InochiZo is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 05:29 PM
 
flitters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ack...

The link I posted wasn't for the study mentioned in the OP.

It was just a reference for the age data point which was one of many reasons the study in the OP seemed questionable to me.

Sorry for the confusion!

me dh ds1 (11/04) ds2 (7/10) and
flitters is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 05:29 PM
 
InochiZo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NWxSE
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Flitters - I am pretty sure the study you linked is the study that the article is based on. Again a newspaper takes a small study to promote what it thinks should be the norm in the western world. I think that articles like the one in the Times are very irresponsible,
InochiZo is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 05:29 PM
 
flitters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by InochiZo
Bedsharing Promotes Breastfeeding
It also talks about a reduction in SIDs with bedsharing.
Yes, I thought that was a good study too!

me dh ds1 (11/04) ds2 (7/10) and
flitters is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 05:31 PM
 
flitters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by InochiZo
Flitters - I am pretty sure the study you linked is the study that the article is based on. Again a newspaper takes a small study to promote what it thinks should be the norm in the western world. I think that articles like the one in the Times are very irresponsible,
hahaha, crosspost extravaganza.

I think they are different. I searched that journal (probably the same search you did) for bedsharing and found nothing from ******* researchers. That study was in Kentucky I think. ???


me dh ds1 (11/04) ds2 (7/10) and
flitters is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 05:39 PM
 
InochiZo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NWxSE
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, I couldn't find anything from *******, so I have no idea what research that article was taking information from.
Good discussion, anyway.
InochiZo is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 05:44 PM
 
Leilalu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 7,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, people have been co-sleeping for thousands of years and humanity has managed to survive. I see no evidence in that article, therefore nothing compels me in it. I also don't understand what a "modern " concept of parenting is to you. Alll kids of parenting styles have been around since the beginning of time I am sure, as everyine has diiferent ideas about kids. So, you practice old-school parenting?I really don't understand..... I don't get your angle.

Due with number 5 in August. We do all that crunchy stuff.
.
Leilalu is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 06:08 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't find it compelling at all.

I don't subscribe to *any* parenting "movement", as you like to call them. However, I believe every baby deserves caring parents who will respond to their needs promptly and nurturingly 100% of the time, whether it is during the day or at night. That includes meeting the baby's need for nighttime comfort and nourishment. Some babies do just fine in cribs, most don't, IMO. Therefore, regardless of whether or not you subscribe to any parenting "movement", if your baby needs the comfort of human touch during the night, (s)he not only deserves it, but is *entitled* to it. I don't see how meeting a baby's needs is part of any "movement". It's just the right way to care for a helpless infant.
Plummeting is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 04:03 AM
 
Avena's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Manifesting in Jah Love!
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I too found this article short of lets say.... REAL FACTS!!!!
Have we forgotten about all the other cultures and other mammals that co-sleep???
And who's really behind this lame article anyway????
Avena is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 04:06 AM
 
Avena's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Manifesting in Jah Love!
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Did anyone read the article on SIDS being linked to vaccines??
How do we know that the above article on co-sleeping babes were not recently vaccinated????
I'm trying to find that article on the Vacc's thread so you all can read it.
Avena is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 04:14 AM
 
Avena's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Manifesting in Jah Love!
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Avena is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 04:21 AM
Banned
 
MrsMoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
MrsMoe is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 04:24 AM
Banned
 
MrsMoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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)
MrsMoe is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 10:03 AM
 
stafl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: standing in a doorway
Posts: 9,123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
stafl is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 10:48 AM
 
chicagomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: covered in cat hair
Posts: 3,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
chicagomom is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 03:06 PM
 
InochiZo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NWxSE
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
InochiZo is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 05:34 PM
 
Dechen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Dechen is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 10:54 PM
 
onlyboys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 3,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
onlyboys is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 01:04 AM
 
Maderella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
oops, meant to post a new thread, sorry.
Maderella is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 05:33 PM
 
LoveChild421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North GA
Posts: 4,490
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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...

Jen read.gif Mama of 2 precious boys blowkiss.gif (9)  flowersforyou.gif (6)  and still in heartbeat.gif with my Matt hat.gif after 12 years together. 

rainbow1284.gif Domestic Violence Children's Advocate and Counselor hug2.gif

 homebirth.jpg bf.jpg nocirc.gif ribbonjigsaw.gif 

LoveChild421 is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off