Cargando…

Reports of Injury Risks and Reasons for Choice of Sleep Environments for Infants and Toddlers

OBJECTIVE: Compare mothers’ reports of injuries for infants and toddlers sleeping with crib-bumpers/mesh-liners/no-barriers and reasons for these sleep environment choices. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of mothers subscribing to a parenting magazine and using crib bumpers (n = 224), mesh liners...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scheers, N. J., Dayton, Chauncey, Batcher, Mary, Thach, Bradley T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6823298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31250240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-019-02803-7
_version_ 1783464499003523072
author Scheers, N. J.
Dayton, Chauncey
Batcher, Mary
Thach, Bradley T.
author_facet Scheers, N. J.
Dayton, Chauncey
Batcher, Mary
Thach, Bradley T.
author_sort Scheers, N. J.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Compare mothers’ reports of injuries for infants and toddlers sleeping with crib-bumpers/mesh-liners/no-barriers and reasons for these sleep environment choices. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Maternal 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10995-019-02803-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6823298
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68232982019-11-06 Reports of Injury Risks and Reasons for Choice of Sleep Environments for Infants and Toddlers Scheers, N. J. Dayton, Chauncey Batcher, Mary Thach, Bradley T. Matern Child Health J Article OBJECTIVE: Compare mothers’ reports of injuries for infants and toddlers sleeping with crib-bumpers/mesh-liners/no-barriers and reasons for these sleep environment choices. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Maternal 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10995-019-02803-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2019-06-27 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6823298/ /pubmed/31250240 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-019-02803-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Scheers, N. J.
Dayton, Chauncey
Batcher, Mary
Thach, Bradley T.
Reports of Injury Risks and Reasons for Choice of Sleep Environments for Infants and Toddlers
title Reports of Injury Risks and Reasons for Choice of Sleep Environments for Infants and Toddlers
title_full Reports of Injury Risks and Reasons for Choice of Sleep Environments for Infants and Toddlers
title_fullStr Reports of Injury Risks and Reasons for Choice of Sleep Environments for Infants and Toddlers
title_full_unstemmed Reports of Injury Risks and Reasons for Choice of Sleep Environments for Infants and Toddlers
title_short Reports of Injury Risks and Reasons for Choice of Sleep Environments for Infants and Toddlers
title_sort reports of injury risks and reasons for choice of sleep environments for infants and toddlers
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6823298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31250240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-019-02803-7
work_keys_str_mv AT scheersnj reportsofinjuryrisksandreasonsforchoiceofsleepenvironmentsforinfantsandtoddlers
AT daytonchauncey reportsofinjuryrisksandreasonsforchoiceofsleepenvironmentsforinfantsandtoddlers
AT batchermary reportsofinjuryrisksandreasonsforchoiceofsleepenvironmentsforinfantsandtoddlers
AT thachbradleyt reportsofinjuryrisksandreasonsforchoiceofsleepenvironmentsforinfantsandtoddlers