ArticleJournal of sleep research2026
Awareness, Use and Acceptability of Infant Behavioural Sleep Interventions: An Initial Exploration Among Caregivers Residing in Five Countries.
Article in Journal of sleep research, 2026. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to assess caregivers' awareness, use and acceptability of common infant behavioural sleep strategies/interventions and explore differences in awareness and acceptability based on country of residence. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted with caregivers (n = 914) of infants aged between 6 and 18 months residing in Australia, Canada, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. Caregivers were provided descriptions of common infant behavioural sleep interventions and reported their awareness of, use, and level of acceptability (using a validated measure: the acceptability of intervention measure [AIM]) for each intervention. Awareness of interventions ranged from 50% to 70% of caregivers, with significant variability by country. Overall, 70% of caregivers had used at least one intervention, with usage rates varying from 25% to 80% depending on the intervention and 30% to 55% of caregivers ceasing use prematurely. Unmodified extinction (AIM = 2.12; 5 = high acceptability), parental presence (AIM = 2.75) and modified extinction (AIM = 2.85) had lower levels of acceptability compared to responsive settling with gradual reduction (AIM = 3.48) and response-based with settling in arms (AIM = 3.51) and bed (AIM = 3.23). Significant differences in acceptability (AIM) scores by country were evident for most of the interventions. As none of the interventions were universally acceptable, a model of care that provides caregivers with information about a range of interventions and the opportunity to choose based on their preferences, parenting styles and cultural beliefs may increase the likelihood of successful intervention adoption.
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.