The influence of bed-sharing on infant physiology, breastfeeding and behaviour: A systematic review.

This review aimed to better understand the underlying physiology of the risks and benefits of bed-sharing. Eight databases were searched using terms relating to adult-infant/baby, bed-sharing/co-sleeping combined with outcome terms for physiology, sleep, cardiovascular, respiratory, temperature and behaviour. Of 836 papers identified, 59 papers representing 48 cohorts met inclusion criteria. Objective data using various methodologies were available in 27 papers and subjective data in 32 papers. Diverse measures were reported using variable definitions of bed-sharing. Identified physiological and behavioural differences between bed-sharing and cot-sleeping included increased behavioural arousals, warmer in-bed temperatures and increased breastfeeding duration in bedshare infants as well as differences in infant overnight sleep architecture, cardiorespiratory control and cortisol responses to stress. We concluded that many differences are context-specific, and dependent on the subjective view of the parents and their cultural values. Objective risk arises if the infant is unable to mount an appropriate physiological or behavioural response to their micro-environment. More studies in the bed-sharing setting are needed to identify infant risk, the potential benefits of a safer environment, and how bed-sharing interacts with infant care practices other than sleep.

Mothers' knowledge and attitudes to sudden infant death syndrome risk reduction messages: results from a UK survey.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate mothers' knowledge of reducing the risks for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and attitudes towards safer sleep practices. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey was carried out in deprived areas of Bristol, UK. Recruitment took place in 2014 at local health visitor-led baby clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Of 432 mothers approached, 400 (93%) completed the face-to-face survey. Participants with infants at 'higher' risk of SIDS (using an algorithm based on a previous observational study) were compared with those at 'lower' risk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey asked participants to recall three SIDS risk reduction strategies (unprompted), and scored responses to 14 SIDS risk-related infant sleep scenarios (prompted). RESULTS: Overall, 48/400 (12%) mothers were classified as higher risk. Mothers in the higher risk group were less likely to breast feed (multivariate OR=3.59(95% CI 1.46 to 8.86)), less likely to be able to cite two or more unprompted correct SIDS risk reduction strategies (multivariate OR=2.05(95% CI 1.02 to 4.13)) and scored lower on prompted safer sleep scenarios overall.Notably, only 206/400 (52%) of all mothers surveyed (33% in the higher risk group) from these deprived areas in Bristol identified infant sleep position as a risk reduction strategy for SIDS, despite 25 years of campaigns. CONCLUSIONS: Mothers in the higher risk group were disadvantaged when it came to some aspects of knowledge of SIDS risk reduction and attitudes to safer sleep. The initial 'Back-to Sleep' message that dramatically reduced these deaths a generation ago needs more effective promotion for today's generation of mothers.

Swaddling and the Risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Swaddling is a traditional practice of wrapping infants to promote calming and sleep. Although the benefits and risks of swaddling in general have been studied, the practice in relation to sudden infant death syndrome remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to conduct an individual-level meta-analysis of sudden infant death syndrome risk for infants swaddled for sleep. DATA SOURCES: Additional data on sleeping position and age were provided by authors of included studies. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies that measured swaddling for the last or reference sleep were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Of 283 articles screened, 4 studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: There was significant heterogeneity among studies (I(2) = 65.5%; P = .03), and a random effects model was therefore used for analysis. The overall age-adjusted pooled odds ratio (OR) for swaddling in all 4 studies was 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-2.58). Removing the most recent study conducted in the United Kingdom reduced the heterogeneity (I(2) = 28.2%; P = .25) and provided a pooled OR (using a fixed effects model) of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05-1.80). Swaddling risk varied according to position placed for sleep; the risk was highest for prone sleeping (OR, 12.99 [95% CI, 4.14-40.77]), followed by side sleeping (OR, 3.16 [95% CI, 2.08-4.81]) and supine sleeping (OR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.27-2.93]). Limited evidence suggested swaddling risk increased with infant age and was associated with a twofold risk for infants aged >6 months. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity among the few studies available, imprecise definitions of swaddling, and difficulties controlling for further known risks make interpretation difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Current advice to avoid front or side positions for sleep especially applies to infants who are swaddled. Consideration should be given to an age after which swaddling should be discouraged.