ArticleJMIR pediatrics and parenting2024
Photos Shared on Facebook in the Context of Safe Sleep Recommendations: Content Analysis of Images.
Article in JMIR pediatrics and parenting, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) remains a leading cause of infant mortality; therefore, understanding parental practices of infant sleep at home is essential. Since social media analyses yield invaluable patient perspectives, understanding sleep practices in the context of safe sleep recommendations via a Facebook mothers' group is instrumental for policy makers, health care providers, and researchers. Objective: This study aimed to identify photos shared by mothers discussing SUID and safe sleep online and assess their consistency with infant sleep guidelines per the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). We hypothesized the photos would not be consistent with guidelines based on prior research and increasing rates of accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed. Methods: Data were extracted from a Facebook mothers' group in May 2019. After trialing various search terms, searching for the term "SIDS" on the selected Facebook group resulted in the most relevant discussions on SUID and safe sleep. The resulting data, including 20 posts and 912 comments among 512 mothers, were extracted and underwent qualitative descriptive content analysis. In completing the extraction and subsequent analysis, 24 shared personal photos were identified among the discussions. Of the photos, 14 pertained to the infant sleep environment. Photos of the infant sleep environment were then assessed for consistency with safe sleep guidelines per the AAP standards by 2 separate reviewers. Results: Of the shared photos relating to the infant sleep environment, 86% (12/14) were not consistent with AAP safe sleep guidelines. Specific inconsistencies included prone sleeping, foreign objects in the sleeping environment, and use of infant sleeping devices. Use of infant monitoring devices was also identified. Conclusions: This study is unique because the photos originated from the home setting, were in the context of SUID and safe sleep, and were obtained without researcher interference. Despite study limitations, the commonality of prone sleeping, foreign objects, and the use of both infant sleep and monitoring devices (ie, overall inconsistency regarding AAP safe sleep guidelines) sets the stage for future investigation regarding parental barriers to practicing safe infant sleep and has implications for policy makers, clinicians, and researchers.
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.