ArticleMaternal and child health journal2019
Reports of Injury Risks and Reasons for Choice of Sleep Environments for Infants and Toddlers.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCompare mothers' reports of injuries for infants and toddlers sleeping with crib-bumpers/mesh-liners/no-barriers and reasons for these sleep environment choices.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of mothers subscribing to a parenting magazine and using crib bumpers (n = 224), mesh liners (n = 262), and no barriers (n = 842). Analyses of four possible injuries (face-covered, climb-out/fall, slat-entrapment, hit-head) including multivariate logistic regression adjusted for missing data/demographics and Chi squared analyses of reasons for mothers' choices.
resultsMaternal reports of finding infants/toddlers with face covered had 3.5 times higher adjusted odds (aOR) for crib bumper versus mesh liner use. Breathing difficulties and wedgings were reported for infants/toddlers using crib bumpers but not mesh liners. Climb-outs/falls showed no significant difference in aORs for crib bumpers versus no-barriers and mesh liners versus no barriers. Reports of slat-entrapment were less likely for mothers using crib bumpers and mesh liners than using no barrier (aOR = .28 and .32). Reports of hit-heads were less likely for crib bumpers vs no barrier (aOR = .38) with no significant difference between mesh liners versus no barrier use. Mothers using crib bumpers and mesh liners felt their choice prevented slat-entrapment (89%, 91%); 93.5% of crib bumper users felt their choice prevented hit-heads. Significantly more mesh liner than crib bumper users chose them because "There is no suffocation risk" (64.1% vs. 40.6%), while 83.6% of no-barrier users chose them because "I was concerned about suffocation risk." CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Mothers appeared to be more concerned about preventing minor risks than suffocation. Understanding reasons for mothers' use of barriers/no-barriers is important in tailoring counseling for mothers with infants/toddlers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.