Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29047226›Full record

ReviewMaternal & child nutrition2018

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

Melissa Bartick, Cecília Tomori, Helen L Ball

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Maternal & child nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. The Baby Box scheme in Scotland: A study of public attitudes and social value.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. A Box to Put the Baby in: UK Parent Perceptions of Two Baby Box Programmes Promoted for Infant Sleep.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  6. Mother-Infant Co-Sleeping and Maternally Reported Infant Breathing Distress in the UK Millennium Cohort.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Baby Box Distributions: Public Health Benefit or Concern?Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Melissa BartickDepartment of Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1287-3883
Cecília TomoriDepartment of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4235-1821
Helen L BallDepartment of Anthropology, Parent-Infant Sleep Lab, Durham University, Durham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2255-121X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

BedsBreast FeedingCultureHumansInfantInfant CareInfant, NewbornSleepSudden Infant Deathbreastfeedinginfant behaviourinfant formulamotherssleepsudden infant death

Identifiers

PMID29047226
PMCPMC6866223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.