Infantile Colic—The Perspective of German and Polish Pediatricians in 2020

Abstract

The objective of the study was to characterize how infantile colic is perceived and managed by German and Polish pediatricians. Data in both countries were collected by using a paper questionnaire with seven questions and predefined and free text fields for the answers. Answers from 160 German and 133 Polish pediatricians were collected. The average of the occurrence rates estimated by both responder groups were at the higher end of published rates. The majority of pediatricians from both countries rated the parental burden caused by infantile colic to be high or very high. Pediatricians’ awareness about the association between infantile colic and maternal depression and premature termination of breastfeeding is relatively well established in both countries. While more than 90% of German pediatricians stated knowledge of infantile colic being a major risk factor for shaken baby syndrome, this knowledge was only declared by half of the Polish responders. Pharmacological interventions, pro-/synbiotics or simethicone, are part of the treatment repertoire of nearly all responding pediatricians. In addition, non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., change of feeding, change of parental behavior) are also among the employed interventions. Results of this study will allow to better design and prioritize communication about infantile colic directed at pediatricians.

Diagnosis and Treatment Approaches in Infantile Colic (IC): Results of a Survey Among Paediatricians in Turkey

“…Present survey study also found out that medical treatments were prescribed by the vast majority of the physicians and previous treatment outcome experience was the most important single determinant on their treatment preference. Similar to the present study, surveys conducted in Europe have also shown that the majority of physicians establish the diagnosis based on clinical experience alone ( 14 , 15 ).…”

“…The lowest prevalence rates were reported from Denmark (6%) and Japan (2%) among infants up to 6 weeks of age, while the highest prevalence rates (17–47%) were reported from the UK in infants of 1–2 weeks of age ( 2 ). In a survey among German and Polish paediatricians, the proportion of infants diagnosed with IC was 41.6% for the German paediatricians, while this figure was 38% in another survey from Australia ( 14 , 15 ). In the current study where all participants were paediatricians, IC diagnosis was most commonly reported in infants of 4–6 weeks of age, followed by those aged 2–4 weeks.…”

“…As in other multifactorial conditions with no clear-cut etiopathogenesis, there is currently no gold standard therapeutic approach for the management of IC treatment ( 19 ). In previous surveys conducted among physicians to investigate therapeutic choices in IC, 97 and 82% of German and Polish paediatricians, respectively, were found to opt for pharmaceutical treatment, while only 18% of Australian paediatricians preferred medical treatments ( 14 , 15 ). In the current study, medical treatments were prescribed by 85.8% of the physicians.…”

“…In the current study where all participants were paediatricians, IC diagnosis was most commonly reported in infants of 4–6 weeks of age, followed by those aged 2–4 weeks. Although most of the participating physicians consider their clinical experience sufficient for establishing a diagnosis of IC, the most commonly ordered laboratory test in those with persistent symptoms was urinalysis, similar to the practise of their Australian colleagues ( 15 ).…”

“…Similar to the present study, in a survey study conducted with German and Polish paediatricians to investigate the treatment approaches in IC, the first 3 options were pro/symbiotic, simethicone, and behavioural therapy, respectively ( 14 ). Among a group of Australian paediatricians, calming techniques, elimination diets, switch to hypoallergic infant formula, and medical treatment were used in 65%, 26%, 24%, and 18% of the IC cases, respectively ( 15 ).…”