Babies in boxes and the missing links on safe sleep: Human evolution and cultural revolution

Construction of the Views oN Infant Sleep (VNIS) Questionnaire

Parents' beliefs about infant sleep behaviour vary over time and across cultures. No validated instrument exists to understand parents' pre- and postnatal views on infant sleep behaviours, which may influence their caregiving decisions. The Views oN Infant Sleep Questionnaire (VNIS) will be a tool to assess parents' beliefs in order to facilitate tailored perinatal care, increase the reliability of postnatal self-report measures, allow for cross-cultural comparisons, and provide a baseline for researchers to use in longitudinal studies. We recruited an online sample of 971 female participants who were resident in the United Kingdom, at least 28 weeks pregnant, and at least 18 years of age. The initial questionnaire consisted of 31 questions about infant independence, night-waking, infant feeding, touch, and safety, and items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The item pool was reduced to 12 using principal component analysis and a structure was found for the three components "Closeness", "Independence", and "Night-waking". Overall, these results suggest that the VNIS can provide a brief scale to measure different aspects of individuals' beliefs about infant sleep. In further research the VNIS needs to be validated with a confirmatory factor analysis in another sample, and to be tested as a cross-cultural instrument.

The Baby Box scheme in Scotland: A study of public attitudes and social value

BACKGROUND

The Scottish Government introduced a free Baby Box scheme for all new parents in 2017, modelled on the Finnish scheme, to give every baby 'an equal start in life'. There is little evidence that it results in better health outcomes, but there has been limited research into different perspectives and discourses on such schemes.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted with 21 parents in North-East Scotland. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, anonymized and analysed thematically with NVivo 12 software. Our thematic analysis was both inductive and deductive-remaining open to themes identified by participants themselves but also informed by the social policy literature on universalism and social cohesion.

RESULTS

Across all the focus groups, we found a high degree of positivity about the principle of the Baby Box scheme, and for the most part the practical value of the contents. This was remarkably consistent across different communities and backgrounds. There was little evidence of the strongly polarized views present in media reporting. Parents seemed considerably less focused than the media on safety and health outcomes, and more focused on practical, material and social impacts. They reported little in the way of feeling patronized or monitored by the government.

CONCLUSION

Our findings have important implications for future economic evaluations of the baby box. Such evaluations should broaden the valuation space beyond health outcomes to allow for the value of feelings of inclusion, solidarity and being part of a community.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This small project was designed in response to parent views already collected in the early roll-out of the Baby Box scheme in Scotland, about their priorities and responses to the scheme. Additional views were sought on the topic guide for the focus groups, and local community groups advised us on recruitment and the best timing and location for the focus groups to be held. The focus groups themselves were conducted as research, but with the intent of ensuring parent views featured more prominently in a debate that has been largely dominated by clinical and public health perspectives.

Impact of the Finnish Maternity Grant on infant mortality rates in the 20th century: a natural experimental study

BACKGROUND

Baby boxes provide goods to new parents and a space for infant sleeping. They were first introduced in Finland, and it has been argued that the policy helped reduce infant mortality. We evaluated the impact of the Finnish Maternity Grant (which includes the Finnish Baby Box) on infant mortality rates (IMRs) at the points of introduction (disadvantaged mothers only) in 1938 and universalisation in 1949.

METHODS

Maternity Grant introduction and universalisation were evaluated as distinct natural experimental events, using interrupted time series analysis. The outcome was IMR per 1000 live births. We analysed national data on all infants born in Finland between 1922 and 1975, estimating step and trend changes in the outcome following the point of intervention. Sensitivity analyses included truncating the pre-intervention period and a double break point model, incorporating terms for both introduction and universalisation.

RESULTS

Maternity grant introduction in 1938 was associated with a step-change increase (β=14.59, 95% CI 4.30 to 24.89) in Finnish IMRs. Maternity grant universalisation in 1949 was associated with a step-change decrease (β=-14.35, 95% CI -20.94 to -7.76) in Finnish IMRs. Sensitivity analyses produced corresponding associations.

CONCLUSIONS

While we observed changes in IMRs associated with Maternity Grant introduction and universalisation, these changes cannot be disentangled from the impact of the Second World War or other relevant policy developments on infant mortality. Consequently, the relationship between the Finnish Baby Box or comparable contemporary interventions and infant mortality remains unclear.

Using complexity science to understand the role of co-sleeping (bedsharing) in mother-infant co-regulatory processes

Human infants spend most of their time sleeping, but over the first few years of life their sleep becomes regulated to coincide more closely with adult sleep (Galland et al., 2012; Paavonen et al., 2020). Evidence shows that co-sleeping played a role in the evolution of infant sleep regulation, as it is part of an ancient behavioral complex representing the biopsychosocial microenvironment in which human infants co-evolved with their mothers through millions of years of human history (Ball, 2003; McKenna 1986, 1990). This paper is a conceptual, interdisciplinary, integration of the literature on mother-infant co-sleeping and other mother-infant co-regulatory processes from an evolutionary (biological) perspective, using complexity science. Viewing the mother-infant dyad as a "complex adaptive system" (CAS) shows how the CAS fits assumptions of regulatory processes and reveals the role of the CAS in the ontogeny of mother-infant co-regulation of physiological (thermoregulation, breathing, circadian rhythm coordination, nighttime synchrony, and heart rate variability) and socioemotional (attachment and cortisol activity) development.

Reasons mothers bedshare: A review of its effects on infant behavior and development

Bedsharing is controversial for nighttime caregiving in the U.S. today, as in most of the West. However, from the standpoint of evolutionary pediatrics, anthropology, and cultural psychology, bedsharing is not controversial at all, representing the context for human infant evolution and conferring a host of physiological benefits to the infant as well as the mother. In an effort to understand the rise in Western bedsharing in recent decades (and following Ball, 2002; McKenna & Volpe, 2007), Salm Ward (2015) systematically reviewed the literature on mother-infant bedsharing and identified ten reasons why mothers choose to bedshare: (1) breastfeeding, (2) comforting for mother or infant, (3) better/more sleep for infant or parent, (4) monitoring, (5) bonding/ attachment, (6) environmental reasons, (7) crying, (8) cultural or familial traditions, (9) disagree with danger, and (10) maternal instinct. The current paper offers the "review behind the review," highlighting the scientific evidence behind the reasons mothers give for their decision to bedshare, focusing on how mothers' decisions about infant sleep location influence infant behavior and development.

A Box to Put the Baby in: UK Parent Perceptions of Two Baby Box Programmes Promoted for Infant Sleep

Between 2016 and 2019, two different infant sleeping-box interventions were implemented in England: (1) shallow polypropylene baby boxes were distributed via a feasibility study to families with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) risk factors; and (2) a commercial–health system partnership scheme distributed cardboard baby boxes to new mothers in particular locations. We conducted parent evaluations of both interventions at the time of implementation. The views of 79 parents receiving polypropylene boxes and 77 parents receiving cardboard boxes were captured using online questionnaires and telephone interviews. Participants provided feedback on education received about using the box, their perception of the box design and materials, their experiences of using the box they received, and whether they would recommend it to others. Parents appreciated that both boxes provided a portable space to place their baby near them anywhere in the home, discouraging other riskier practices. The polypropylene box was rated more favourably regarding transparency, hygiene, and portability outside the home. A minority of parents found the idea of putting their baby in any box unappealing; however, younger mothers and smokers particularly appreciated the ability to safely co-sleep with their babies using the shallower box. Overall, the versatility of the polypropylene box scheme was more positively evaluated than the cardboard baby box scheme, which, stripped of its social value as part of a larger welfare provision, had minimal value for parents that received it.

Parents' strategies and advice for creating a positive sleep situation in the family

AIM

The aim of this study was to describe the experience-based knowledge of parents of children aged 0-3 years for creating a positive sleep situation in the family.

DESIGN

This study has a qualitative design. Data were collected using an online survey and analysed using the critical incident technique.

METHODS

The study participants were recruited through an announcement posted in parenting groups on a social media platform in September 2018. A total of 93 parents answered the questionnaire; 76 of the parents matched the study's selection criteria, and their responses were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The results are presented from the two main questions in the survey: "Strategies for creating a positive sleep situation" and "Advice to new parents regarding sleep". Having routines and reading the child's signals were important strategies, as were creating good conditions for sleep and making sure the child was well-fed and content at bedtime. Winding down and giving the child closeness and touch was described as important, and some parents would co-sleep to soothe the child quickly and create a sense of security and belonging. Parents' most frequent advice to other parents was to accept the situation and to let go of the idea that the child should sleep without waking up in a separate bed or room.

CONCLUSION

Personal preferences and needs are likely to vary among individuals, and it is important that nurses tailor sleep advice in accordance with families' preferences and needs, taking individual variations and views into account.

Two-Year Test-Retest Reliability of the Breastfeeding Duration Question Used By the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS): Implications for Research

INTRODUCTION

A large literature exists on positive sequelae of breastfeeding, relying heavily on maternal self-reported infant feeding behaviors. Many such studies use PRAMS data, though estimates of reliability for the breastfeeding duration question on PRAMS have not been published.

METHODS

We used data from Oregon PRAMS (respondents are a median 3.5 months postpartum) and PRAMS-2 (median 25 months) to assess test-retest reliability of maternal self-reported breastfeeding duration, among women who had weaned prior to completing the PRAMS survey.

RESULTS

The sample-wide kappa for the paired, self-reported breastfeeding duration was 0.014, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.17, both of which indicate poor agreement. More than 80% of women reported a longer duration on PRAMS-2; the median (interquartile range) difference was +1.0 (0.31 - 2.1) months.

DISCUSSION

Recent literature on this topic from high-income countries falls into two categories: entirely retrospective versus "prospective" reliability assessments. Entirely retrospective assessments (both inquiries occur well after weaning) universally report exceedingly high reliability, whereas "prospective" assessments (women report infant feeding behavior during infancy, immediately after weaning, and some years later are asked to replicate their original answer) universally report poorer reliability. Interestingly, all "prospective" reliability studies, including ours, found that women over-report past breastfeeding durations by about 1 month upon the second inquiry. Researchers need not refrain from using maternal self-reported breastfeeding durations, because participants are largely still ranked correctly, relative to each other. However, such research efforts must avoid attempting to determine any optimal threshold duration.

Sleep Consolidation, Sleep Problems, and Co-Sleeping: Rethinking Normal Infant Sleep as Species-Typical

Infants evolved in the context of close contact (including co-sleeping). Evolutionary context is rarely considered in psychological infant sleep research, and Western sleep researchers make assumptions about what optimal "normal" infant sleep is and how to achieve early, deep, infant sleep consolidation and avoid infant sleep problems. However, an evolutionary and anthropological view of infant sleep as species-typical recognizes that human evolution likely prepared the infant brain for optimal development within its evolutionary context - co-sleeping. Thus, "normal" infant sleep, sleep consolidation, and sleep problems should all be understood within the framework of co-sleeping infants, not the historically new-phenomenon of solitary-sleeping infants. Much work needs to be done in order to understand "normal" infant sleep as species-typical and how adaptive infants are to environments that stray from their evolutionary norm.

Mother-Infant Co-Sleeping and Maternally Reported Infant Breathing Distress in the UK Millennium Cohort

Mother-infant co-sleeping or bed sharing is discouraged by health organisations due to evidence that it is associated with unexplained sudden infant death. On the other hand, there is evidence that it should theoretically be beneficial for infants. One line of this evidence concerns breathing regulation, which at night is influenced by the rocking movement of the mother's chest as she breathes. Here, the hypothesis that mother-infant co-sleeping will be associated with a lower probability of infant breathing distress is tested in the UK Millennium Cohort Study (n = 18,552 infants). Maternal, infant, family, and socio-economic covariates were included in logistic regression analysis, and in a machine learning algorithm (Random Forest) to make full use of the number of variables available in the birth cohort study data. Results from logistic regression analysis showed that co-sleeping was associated with a reduced risk of breathing difficulties (OR = 0.69, p = 0.027). The Random Forest algorithm placed high importance on socio-economic aspects of infant environment, and indicated that a number of maternal, child, and environmental variables predicted breathing distress. Co-sleeping by itself was not high in the Random Forest variable importance ranking. Together, the results suggest that co-sleeping may be associated with a modest reduction in risk of infant breathing difficulties.

What Is “Normal” Infant Sleep? Why We Still Do Not Know

The human need for sleep is universal and unquestioned; however, humans vary in their sleep needs according to age, individual differences, as well as cultural and social norms and practices. Therefore, what is “normal” in infant sleep and the development of sleep architecture in humans is highly dependent on biological and sociocultural variables as well as socially constructed assumptions about what infant sleep “should” look like. This paper uses a multidisciplinary approach to review papers from fields including pediatrics, anthropology, psychology, medicine, and sociology to understand “normal” infant sleep. Because human culture and behavioral practice changes much more quickly than evolved human biology, and because human evolutionary history occurred in the context of breastfeeding and cosleeping, new work in the field of infant sleep architecture development would benefit from a multidisciplinary approach. To come to a consensus about what is “normal” infant sleep, researchers must agree on underlying basic assumptions of infant sleep from which to ask question and interpret findings.

Bedsharing and Breastfeeding: The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine Protocol #6, Revision 2019

A central goal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is the development of clinical protocols for managing common medical problems that may impact breastfeeding success. These protocols serve only as guidelines for the care of breastfeeding mothers and infants and do not delineate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as standards of medical care. Variations in treatment may be appropriate according to the needs of an individual patient.

Mother⁻Infant Physical Contact Predicts Responsive Feeding among U.S. Breastfeeding Mothers

Responsive feeding—initiating feeding in response to early hunger cues—supports the physiology of lactation and the development of infant feeding abilities, yet there is a dearth of research examining what predicts responsive feeding. In non-Western proximal care cultures, there is an association between responsive feeding and mother–infant physical contact, but this has not been investigated within Western populations. In two studies, we tested whether mother–infant physical contact predicted feeding in response to early hunger cues versus feeding on a schedule or after signs of distress among U.S. breastfeeding mothers. With an online questionnaire in Study 1 (n = 626), physical contact with infants (via co-sleeping and babywearing) predicted increased likelihood of self-reported responsive feeding. Mothers who reported responsive feeding were more likely to exclusively breastfeed for the first six months, breastfeed more frequently throughout the day, and had a longer planned breastfeeding duration than mothers who reported feeding on a schedule or after signs of infant distress. In Study 2 (n = 96), a three-day feeding log showed that mother–infant physical contact predicted feeding in response to early hunger cues but mother–infant proximity (without physical contact) did not. In sum, our results demonstrate that physical contact with infants may shape breastfeeding behavior among U.S. mothers, highlighting a connection between social interaction and infant nutrition that warrants further investigation.

Babies in boxes and the missing links on safe sleep: Human evolution and cultural revolution

Concerns about bedsharing as a risk for sudden infant death syndrome and other forms of sleep-associated infant death have gained prominence as a public health issue. Cardboard "baby boxes" are increasingly promoted to prevent infant death through separate sleep, despite no proof of efficacy. However, baby boxes disrupt "breastsleeping" (breastfeeding with co-sleeping) and may undermine breastfeeding. Recommendations enforcing separate sleep are based on 20th century Euro-American social norms for solitary infant sleep and scheduled feedings via bottles of cow's milk-based formula, in contrast to breastsleeping, an evolutionary adaptation facilitating the survival of mammalian infants for millennia. Interventions that aim to prevent bedsharing, such as the cardboard baby box, fail to consider the implications of evolutionary biology or of ethnocentrism in sleep guidance. Moreover, the focus on bedsharing neglects more potent risks such as smoking, drugs, alcohol, formula feeding, and poverty. Distribution of baby boxes may divert resources and attention away from addressing these other risk factors and lead to a false sense of security wherein we overlook that sudden unexplained infant deaths also occur in solitary sleep environments. Recognizing breastsleeping as the evolutionary and cross-cultural norm entails re-evaluating our research and policy priorities, such as providing greater structural support for families, supporting breastfeeding and safe co-sleeping, investigating ways to safely minimize separation for formula-fed infants, and mitigating the potential harms of mother-infant separation when breastsleeping is disrupted. Resources would be better spent addressing such questions rather than on a feel-good solution such as the baby box.