Anyone who has experienced parenting a baby with colic will tell you how challenging it is. And they will all likely be able to offer some advice, some comfort techniques, or at the least a shoulder to cry on. But it turns out you’ll find more of these parents in countries like Italy, the U.K., and Canada, as a new study reports that babies in these countries cry more than babies elsewhere.
The study, originally published in The Journal of Pediatrics and reported by Julia Zorthian of Time, found that:
“In the U.K. 28% of babies 1 to 2 weeks old had colic, for example, while the average prevalence for that age was only 17.4%. And 34.1% of babies in Canada had colic at 3 to 4 weeks, while the average percentage was 18.4%. On the other hand, the study found 6.7% of babies in Denmark at 5 to 6 weeks had colic, much lower than the average 25.1% for that age.”
Along with Denmark, the study found that babies in Japan and Germany cried the least. Wondering why the large discrepancy between countries? Unfortunately, we don’t know yet.
“The study did not determine a reason for the variation in crying time by country, but the scientists said there should be more research into potential cultural and genetic influences.”
What are your thoughts? Why are some countries reporting such high rates of colic in their babies?
Did you have to convince your friends and family that having your baby in a birth center was not only safe, but the safest place to have your baby? What is common is not necessarily always the best practice. Many of the interventions we commonly see in labor and delivery room are not only unnecessary, but even harmful.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently released a committee opinion recommending different approaches for limiting interventions during labor and birth for low-risk women. Their conclusion?
Many common obstetric practices are of limited or uncertain benefit for low-risk women in spontaneous labor. In addition, some women may seek to reduce medical interventions during labor and delivery. Satisfaction with one’s birth experience also is related to personal expectations, support from caregivers, quality of the patient–caregiver relationship, and the patient’s involvement in decision making (57). Therefore, obstetrician–gynecologists and other obstetric care providers should be familiar with and consider using low-interventional approaches, when appropriate, for the intrapartum management of low-risk women in spontaneous labor.
While families, midwives, birth centers, and care providers are celebrating this statement, Childbirth Connection released an excellent fact sheet summarizing ACOG’s opinion, as well as a reminder that:
Unfortunately, it often takes many years before health care providers reliably carry out the recommendations of professional organizations. So, it is important for pregnant women themselves to become informed and take an active role in securing high-quality care for themselves and their babies.
Childbirth Connection’s Fact Sheet included the following ACOG recommendations (these will look familiar if you’ve had or are having your baby in a birth center!):
- Stay home until “active” labor
- Keep track of the baby’s heartbeat with a hand-held device.
- Obtain continuous, one-to-one support from a labor companion such as a doula.
- Drink clear liquids during labor.
- Avoid a procedure to break the membranes (bag of waters).
- Use upright positions and/or move about during labor.
- Try various drug-free pain relief methods.
- Use position of comfort and choice when pushing and giving birth.
- Rest and await the urge to push after full dilation.
- Push according to one’s own urges and preferences.
How might this information influence your labor and birth? What conversations or questions do you need to bring up at your next prenatal appointment?
In a recent study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, researchers linked an early start to menstruation with a greater risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) later in life.
After collecting data from 4,749 women, researchers determined that women who had begun menstruating before age 11 were 51% more likely to have gestational diabetes than those who started menstruation at 13 years.
A summary shared by Contemporary OB/GYN by Judith M. Orvos and Miranda Hester stated:
The investigators believe their findings illustrate that young age at the start of menarche may be a way of identifying women who are higher risk of developing GDM. They say that further studies are needed to confirm these initial results and to illuminate the role of early start of menarche and later risk of GDM.
Does your experience line up with the research? Wondering what you can do to decrease your risk of developing gestational diabetes? Ask your midwife at your next appointment.
Last fall, a few Babymoon staffers were lucky enough to attend a day-long seminar with Penny Simkin, renowned author, physical therapist, childbirth educator and doula. The day was chock-full of knowledge and “Penny-isms,” including Penny’s long-time insistence that parents-to-be sing to their babies in utero.
As usual, Penny was spot on with her advice, as new research from the University of Milan suggests that babies who are sung to in the womb will cry less during the newborn period. Telegraph:
summarized the study in the
A study of 160 women found that those who sang lullabies both during pregnancy and after giving birth had babies who spent significantly shorter periods crying. Around 170 pregnant women were split between those who were told to sing lullabies in the months immediately before and after birth and those who were not.
The babies in the singing group generally cried 18.5 per cent of the time compared to 28.2 per cent of the time in the group who were not sung to. Meanwhile for those with colic – excessive or frequent crying where there is no ill health – the babies who had enjoyed prenatal lullabies tended to cry for about a quarter of the time.
So let’s get singing! What songs will you serenade your your little one with before he or she arrives?
Another study with shocking results. Midwives all over are stunned. KIDDING! Take this entire study to your friends who ask you about evidence based care and the standard treatment of newborns in a traditional inpatient setting. Here is the conclusion:
The proportion of newborns transferred to the NICU for observation was significantly different and lower after implementing skin-to-skin contact immediately after cesarean birth (Pearson’s χ2 = 32.004, df = 1, p < .001). These results add to the growing body of literature supporting immediate, uninterrupted skin-to-skin contact for all mother–newborn pairs, regardless of birth mode.
A fascinating case study and exploration of the WHY behind the delay in evidence to implementation in health care. Although the article does not address maternal health care, the philosophy is clear – does this sound familiar?
David Epstein/ProPublica writes:
“Most of my colleagues,” Christoforetti says, “will say: ‘Look, save yourself the headache, just do the surgery. None of us are going to be upset with you for doing the surgery. Your bank account’s not going to be upset with you for doing the surgery. Just do the surgery.’”
The first case study in the article looked at two patients with very different outcomes. Neither one needed a stent. The patient who got one did not survive. The article explains:
Stents for stable patients prevent zero heart attacks and extend the lives of patients a grand total of not at all.What the patients in both stories had in common was that neither needed a stent. By dint of an inquiring mind and a smartphone, one escaped with his life intact. The greater concern is: How can a procedure so contraindicated by research be so common?
When you visit a doctor, you probably assume the treatment you receive is backed by evidence from medical research. Surely, the drug you’re prescribed or the surgery you’ll undergo wouldn’t be so common if it didn’t work, right?
For all the truly wondrous developments of modern medicine—imaging technologies that enable precision surgery, routine organ transplants, care that transforms premature infants into perfectly healthy kids, and remarkable chemotherapy treatments, to name a few—it is distressingly ordinary for patients to get treatments that research has shown are ineffective or even dangerous. Sometimes doctors simply haven’t kept up with the science. Other times doctors know the state of play perfectly well but continue to deliver these treatments because it’s profitable—or even because they’re popular and patients demand them. Some procedures are implemented based on studies that did not prove whether they really worked in the first place. Others were initially supported by evidence but then were contradicted by better evidence, and yet these procedures have remained the standards of care for years, or decades.
The entire article contains several case studies and a thorough look at the research. It is a great read! What are your thoughts relating to maternal health care?