Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Social science medicine. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A denitive version was subsequently published in Social science medicine, 79, 2013, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.025 Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Mothers and infants sleeping within proximity to each other (cosleeping) represents normal, healthy, and expectable human behaviour, especially if mothers breastfeed. Yet, western health officials generally recommend against particularly one form of co-sleeping known as bedsharing. This study explores these issues and especially highlights parental accounts of their sleep practices, interpretations, and reflections based on detailed narratives or 'ethnohistories.' The sample involves a self-selected sub-group of over 200 mostly middle-class mothers from Canada, the United States, Australia, and Great Britain. Mothers report how and why they adopted co-sleeping practices, how satisfied they are (or were) with their decisions, and what benefits they think they or their infants derived from their co-sleeping practices. Also included in the reports are a surprisingly high number of parents who think they may have saved their infant's life by bedsharing, data heretofore never reported in the literature. The formulation of medical policies, we suggest, ultimately must be informed by a full understanding of how parents actually think about and subsequently structure their infant's sleep, what their goals and expectations are, and by an awareness of the emotional factors motivating parents to choose certain sleeping arrangements over others. The results reveal that many factors coalesce, often in unique ways, under unique circumstances, family by family, to determine where babies sleep and why. We conclude that sleeping arrangements are not solely determined by medically based recommendations, but also by the method of feeding, the particular needs of a particular infant, and the needs of mothers and fathers to get more sleep. While baby sleep locations and sleep patterns change in the first year of life,
A large social science and public health literature addresses infant sleep safety, with implications for infant mortality in the context of accidental deaths and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). As part of risk reduction campaigns in the USA, parents are encouraged to place infants supine and to alter infant bedding and elements of the sleep environment, and are discouraged from allowing infants to sleep unsupervised, from bed-sharing either at all or under specific circumstances, or from sofa-sharing. These recommendations are based on findings from large-scale epidemiological studies that generate odds ratios or relative risk statistics for various practices; however, detailed behavioural data on nighttime parenting and infant sleep environments are limited. To address this issue, this paper presents and discusses the implications of four case studies based on overnight observations conducted with first-time mothers and their four-month old infants. These case studies were collected at the Mother-Baby Behavioral Sleep Lab at the University of Notre Dame USA between September 2002 and June 2004.Each case study provides a detailed description based on video analysis of sleep-related risks observed while mother-infant dyads spent the night in a sleep lab. The case studies provide examples of mothers engaged in the strategic management of nighttime parenting for whom sleep-related risks to infants arose as a result of these strategies. Although risk reduction guidelines focus on eliminating potentially risky infant sleep practices as if the probability of death from each were equal, the majority of instances in which these occur are unlikely to result in infant mortality. Therefore, we hypothesise that mothers assess potential costs and benefits within margins of risk which are not acknowledged by risk-reduction campaigns. Exploring why mothers might choose to manage sleep and nighttime parenting in ways that appear to increase potential risks to infants may help illuminate how risks occur for individual infants.
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Table of contentsIntroduction to the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration: advancing efficient methodologies through team science and community partnershipsCara Lewis, Doyanne Darnell, Suzanne Kerns, Maria Monroe-DeVita, Sara J. Landes, Aaron R. Lyon, Cameo Stanick, Shannon Dorsey, Jill Locke, Brigid Marriott, Ajeng Puspitasari, Caitlin Dorsey, Karin Hendricks, Andria Pierson, Phil Fizur, Katherine A. ComtoisA1: A behavioral economic perspective on adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based interventionsLawrence A. PalinkasA2: Towards making scale up of evidence-based practices in child welfare systems more efficient and affordablePatricia ChamberlainA3: Mixed method examination of strategic leadership for evidence-based practice implementationGregory A. Aarons, Amy E. Green, Mark. G. Ehrhart, Elise M. Trott, Cathleen E. WillgingA4: Implementing practice change in Federally Qualified Health Centers: Learning from leaders’ experiencesMaria E. Fernandez, Nicholas H. Woolf, Shuting (Lily) Liang, Natalia I. Heredia, Michelle Kegler, Betsy Risendal, Andrea Dwyer, Vicki Young, Dayna Campbell, Michelle Carvalho, Yvonne Kellar-GuentherA3: Mixed method examination of strategic leadership for evidence-based practice implementationGregory A. Aarons, Amy E. Green, Mark. G. Ehrhart, Elise M. Trott, Cathleen E. WillgingA4: Implementing practice change in Federally Qualified Health Centers: Learning from leaders’ experiencesMaria E. Fernandez, Nicholas H. Woolf, Shuting (Lily) Liang, Natalia I. Heredia, Michelle Kegler, Betsy Risendal, Andrea Dwyer, Vicki Young, Dayna Campbell, Michelle Carvalho, Yvonne Kellar-GuentherA5: Efficient synthesis: Using qualitative comparative analysis and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research across diverse studiesLaura J. Damschroder, Julie C. LoweryA6: Establishing a veterans engagement group to empower patients and inform Veterans Affairs (VA) health services researchSarah S. Ono, Kathleen F. Carlson, Erika K. Cottrell, Maya E. O’Neil, Travis L. LovejoyA7: Building patient-practitioner partnerships in community oncology settings to implement behavioral interventions for anxious and depressed cancer survivorsJoanna J. Arch, Jill L. MitchellA8: Tailoring a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy implementation protocol using mixed methods, conjoint analysis, and implementation teamsCara C. Lewis, Brigid R. Marriott, Kelli ScottA9: Wraparound Structured Assessment and Review (WrapSTAR): An efficient, yet comprehensive approach to Wraparound implementation evaluationJennifer Schurer Coldiron, Eric J. Bruns, Alyssa N. HookA10: Improving the efficiency of standardized patient assessment of clinician fidelity: A comparison of automated actor-based and manual clinician-based ratingsBenjamin C. Graham, Katelin JordanA11: Measuring fidelity on the cheapRochelle F. Hanson, Angela Moreland, Benjamin E. Saunders, Heidi S. ResnickA12: Leveraging routine clinical materials to assess fidelity to an evidence-based psychotherapyShannon Wiltsey Sti...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.