Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33754131›Full record

SynthesisBMJ paediatrics open2021

Decision-making for the infant sleep environment among families with children considered to be at risk of sudden unexpected death in infancy: a systematic review and qualitative metasynthesis.

Anna Pease, Joanna J Garstang, Catherine Ellis, Debbie Watson, Jenny Ingram, Christie Cabral, Peter S Blair, Peter J Fleming

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ paediatrics open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Infant Safe Sleep Promotion: Increasing Capacity of Child Protective Services Employees.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Anna PeaseCentre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3472-1047
Joanna J GarstangChildren and Family Services, Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust, Aston, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9268-0581
Catherine EllisDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6739-8314
Debbie WatsonChildren and Families Research Centre, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5467-3604
Jenny IngramCentre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2366-008X
Christie CabralCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9884-0555
Peter S BlairCentre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7832-8087
Peter J FlemingCentre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2521-5764
University of Bristol · GBBirmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust · GBNorthumbria University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Advice to families to sleep infants on their backs, avoid smoke exposure, reduce excess bedcovering and avoid specific risks associated with cosleeping has greatly reduced sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) rates worldwide. The fall in rates has not been equal across all groups, and this advice has been less effective for more socially deprived families. Understanding decision-making processes of families with infants at risk would support the development of more effective interventions. Aim: To synthesise the qualitative evidence on parental decision-making for the infant sleep environment among families with children considered to be at increased risk of SUDI. Methods: This study was one of three related reviews of the literature for the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel's National Review in England into SUDI in families where the children are considered at risk of harm. A systematic search of eight online databases was carried out in December 2019. Metasynthesis was conducted, with themes extracted from each paper, starting with the earliest publication first. Results: The wider review returned 3367 papers, with 16 papers (across 13 studies) specifically referring to parental decision-making. Six overall themes were identified from the synthesis: (1) knowledge as different from action; (2) external advice must be credible; (3) comfort, convenience and disruption to the routine; (4) plausibility and mechanisms of protection; (5) meanings of safety and risk mitigation using alternative strategies; and (6) parents' own expertise, experience and instincts. Conclusion: Interventions that are intended to improve the uptake of safer sleep advice in families with infants at risk of sleep-related SUDI need to be based on credible advice with mechanisms of protection that are understandable, consistent with other sources, widened to all carers of the infant and fit within the complex practice of caring for infants.

Indexed as

Sudden Infant DeathCaregiversChildEnglandHumansInfantParentsSleepqualitative researchsleep

Identifiers

PMID33754131
PMCPMC7938979
OpenAlexW3135296448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.