Concerns about the promotion of a cardboard baby box as a place for infants to sleep

The provision of the baby box was associated with safe sleep practices in a low-resource community: a randomized control trial in Ecuador

BACKGROUND

Sudden Unexpected Infant Deaths (SUID) can occur between 1 month and 1 year of age and are inequitably distributed with a greater burden in populations with numerous health disparities. Modifying the infant sleep environment to promote safe sleep is the most effective risk reduction strategy to reduce SUID. The provision of baby boxes with a mattress and infant supplies has been part of a larger anti-poverty social justice maternity package for decades in Finland. While infant mortality rates have generally improved after the maternity package was introduced, little is known about whether the provision of the baby box increased safe sleep practices. The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether the provision of a Finnish-style baby box reinforced safe infant sleep practice in the home in a low-resource community in Ecuador.

METHODS

In this longitudinal randomized controlled trial all participants received the same safe sleep education in their third trimester of pregnancy (n = 100). This was followed by randomization into two groups; the control received a diaper bag and newborn gifts, and the intervention group received a baby box and the same gifts at each timepoint. Four infant sleep practices (room sharing, bed sharing/co-sleeping, position, and soft items in the sleep environment) were assessed at 1 month and 1 months post-delivery during a home visit where safe sleep education was also reinforced with both groups.

RESULTS

Those in the baby box group were 2.5 times more likely to report safe sleep practices compared with mothers in the diaper bag group at 1 month (odds ratio [OR] = 2.45 and 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-5.86; χ² = 4.1, p = .043). The group difference was also present at 6-months post-birth: those in the baby box group were 2.9 times more likely to report safe sleep practices compared with those in the diaper bag group (OR = 2.86 and 95% CI: 1.16-7.05; χ² = 5.2, p = .022).

CONCLUSIONS

While not all participants used the box regularly, the mothers who received the box were more likely to practice safe sleep at 1 month and 6 months. This suggests the baby box may have served as an important prompt towards safer infant sleep practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(Clinical Trial Registry, per clinicaltrials.gov : not applicable under 42 CFR 11.22(b) as the study Facility Location was not in the United States (took place in Ecuador), does not involve FDA IND or IDE, and does not involve a drug, biological or device product that is manufactured in and exported from the US for study in another country. The University of San Francisco Quito, Research Ethics Committee in Human Beings approved the study, #2017- 127 M. The University of Kentucky Office of Research Integrity also approved the study, IRB # 42965).

The Baby Box scheme in Scotland: A study of public attitudes and social value

BACKGROUND

The Scottish Government introduced a free Baby Box scheme for all new parents in 2017, modelled on the Finnish scheme, to give every baby 'an equal start in life'. There is little evidence that it results in better health outcomes, but there has been limited research into different perspectives and discourses on such schemes.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted with 21 parents in North-East Scotland. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, anonymized and analysed thematically with NVivo 12 software. Our thematic analysis was both inductive and deductive-remaining open to themes identified by participants themselves but also informed by the social policy literature on universalism and social cohesion.

RESULTS

Across all the focus groups, we found a high degree of positivity about the principle of the Baby Box scheme, and for the most part the practical value of the contents. This was remarkably consistent across different communities and backgrounds. There was little evidence of the strongly polarized views present in media reporting. Parents seemed considerably less focused than the media on safety and health outcomes, and more focused on practical, material and social impacts. They reported little in the way of feeling patronized or monitored by the government.

CONCLUSION

Our findings have important implications for future economic evaluations of the baby box. Such evaluations should broaden the valuation space beyond health outcomes to allow for the value of feelings of inclusion, solidarity and being part of a community.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This small project was designed in response to parent views already collected in the early roll-out of the Baby Box scheme in Scotland, about their priorities and responses to the scheme. Additional views were sought on the topic guide for the focus groups, and local community groups advised us on recruitment and the best timing and location for the focus groups to be held. The focus groups themselves were conducted as research, but with the intent of ensuring parent views featured more prominently in a debate that has been largely dominated by clinical and public health perspectives.

Evidence Base for 2022 Updated Recommendations for a Safe Infant Sleeping Environment to Reduce the Risk of Sleep-Related Infant Deaths

Every year in the United States, approximately 3500 infants die of sleep-related infant deaths, including sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision [ICD-10] R95), ill-defined deaths (ICD-10 R99), and accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed (ICD-10 W75). After a substantial decline in sleep-related deaths in the 1990s, the overall death rate attributable to sleep-related infant deaths have remained stagnant since 2000, and disparities persist. The triple risk model proposes that SIDS occurs when an infant with intrinsic vulnerability (often manifested by impaired arousal, cardiorespiratory, and/or autonomic responses) undergoes an exogenous trigger event (eg, exposure to an unsafe sleeping environment) during a critical developmental period. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a safe sleep environment to reduce the risk of all sleep-related deaths. This includes supine positioning; use of a firm, noninclined sleep surface; room sharing without bed sharing; and avoidance of soft bedding and overheating. Additional recommendations for SIDS risk reduction include human milk feeding; avoidance of exposure to nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, opioids, and illicit drugs; routine immunization; and use of a pacifier. New recommendations are presented regarding noninclined sleep surfaces, short-term emergency sleep locations, use of cardboard boxes as a sleep location, bed sharing, substance use, home cardiorespiratory monitors, and tummy time. In addition, additional information to assist parents, physicians, and nonphysician clinicians in assessing the risk of specific bed-sharing situations is included. The recommendations and strength of evidence for each recommendation are published in the accompanying policy statement, which is included in this issue.

A Box to Put the Baby in: UK Parent Perceptions of Two Baby Box Programmes Promoted for Infant Sleep

Between 2016 and 2019, two different infant sleeping-box interventions were implemented in England: (1) shallow polypropylene baby boxes were distributed via a feasibility study to families with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) risk factors; and (2) a commercial–health system partnership scheme distributed cardboard baby boxes to new mothers in particular locations. We conducted parent evaluations of both interventions at the time of implementation. The views of 79 parents receiving polypropylene boxes and 77 parents receiving cardboard boxes were captured using online questionnaires and telephone interviews. Participants provided feedback on education received about using the box, their perception of the box design and materials, their experiences of using the box they received, and whether they would recommend it to others. Parents appreciated that both boxes provided a portable space to place their baby near them anywhere in the home, discouraging other riskier practices. The polypropylene box was rated more favourably regarding transparency, hygiene, and portability outside the home. A minority of parents found the idea of putting their baby in any box unappealing; however, younger mothers and smokers particularly appreciated the ability to safely co-sleep with their babies using the shallower box. Overall, the versatility of the polypropylene box scheme was more positively evaluated than the cardboard baby box scheme, which, stripped of its social value as part of a larger welfare provision, had minimal value for parents that received it.

'It looks like a breadbox': a pilot study investigating implementation of the Pepi-Pod® program with Aboriginal families in metropolitan South Australia

AIMS

To collaboratively explore the cultural acceptance of the Pepi-Pod® program as an alternate safe sleep space and to explore the process of implementing the Pepi-Pod® program in a mainstream health service for Aboriginal families living in urban South Australia.

BACKGROUND

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants continue to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) at rates three to four times greater than other infants born in Australia despite Council of Australian Governments commitment to halve the gap in the Indigenous infant mortality rate by 2018. The Pepi-Pod® program is evidenced in New Zealand and Queensland to provide a culturally appropriate safe sleep alternative that contributes to the reduction of SIDS and SUDI. We have no evidence of acceptability or feasibility when offered through mainstream services in metropolitan South Australia.

METHODS

With a focus on decolonizing the research process through a two-way process for mutual learning between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal team members and community, a novel qualitative design was employed including photo elicited yarning sessions (n = 7), focus groups (n = 2), and field notes (n = 15).

RESULTS

Four themes emerged: 'you don't have to worry'; 'a way of sharing knowledge'; 'it looks like a bread box?' and 'need for consistent safe sleep messages'. The findings suggest that participants believe the Pepi-Pod® program may enrich Aboriginal families' lives evoking feelings of comfort and safety; however, the design could be improved to make them more culturally appropriate. There was confusion around safe sleep processes and education with a call for streamlining safe sleep messaging.

Baby-box schemes in England: parent and practitioner experiences, and recommendations

Background

Programmes offering carboard baby boxes to parents in England began in some NHS Trusts in 2016. This study aimed to examine the strengths and weaknesses of English baby-box schemes as experienced by healthcare providers and parents.

Methods

An independent mixed-methods evaluation was conducted via telephone interviews and online surveys with healthcare providers and parents in all 7/9 NHS regions of England where baby-box schemes were established 2016–2019. Participants responded to requests circulated electronically by NHS Research & Design Departments, and infant health organisations in England. The objectives were to identify how parents and healthcare providers understood and experienced baby-box schemes implemented in England to date, and to produce recommendations for organisations considering involvement in future schemes.

Results

Baby-box schemes changed over time, and were complex to run and monitor. Both parents and practitioners were misinformed about their purpose and origins. Partnerships with a commercial box-provider reduced the investment needed to run a baby-box scheme, and offered potential benefits to staff regarding engagement with families via online education and face-to-face contact around handover of boxes, but carried unforeseen costs. Of particular concern was the box-provider’s access to parent personal details being promoted by NHS staff and parents’ lack of awareness; the hidden costs incurred by NHS facilities of running a box-scheme; and the costs incurred by parents in accessing their ‘free’ box. Sixteen recommendations are proposed for healthcare providers and organisations considering commercial - health-provider baby-box partnerships in future.

Conclusions

Many assumptions exist about the origins and purpose of baby-boxes; this misinformation needs correcting, especially as it relates to infant death reduction and safe infant sleep. Baby-box schemes take multiple forms from those motivated by social welfare to those motivated by commercial profit. The English experience of partnership schemes between healthcare facilities and commercial box-providers reveals some success stories, along with multiple points of ambiguity, unanticipated difficulty, and concerns for infant safety.