The Prone Alternative

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 94 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-105
Author(s):  
Susan R. Orenstein

Having attended both National Institutes of Health (NIH) meetings on infant sleep position (March 30 through 31, 1992, and January 13 through 14, 1994), and having publically expressed a minority view that the advantages of supine position in the United States might be outweighed by the disadvantages,1,2 I have been queried about whether my views have changed since the second NIH meeting. Most recently, Dr John Kattwinkel, of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Sleep Positioning and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), was kind enough to request my response to the report of the second meeting.3 This response is as follows.

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 9-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Levy Raydo ◽  
Christine Reu-Donlon

The American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended in 1992 that infants be placed on their backs for sleep to reduce the risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Since that time, there has been a national drop in the incidence of SIDS of more than 40 percent. Unfortunately, many parents and other caregivers are still receiving inconsistent information and observing varying practices regarding infant sleep position.This article emphasizes the role of the health care professional in both teaching and modeling these potentially lifesaving practices consistently and unambiguously. Available literature is reviewed regarding attitudes and beliefs about infant sleep positioning, and specific concerns are addressed in order to allow for better tailoring of educational programs.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 814-819 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Willinger ◽  
Howard J. Hoffman ◽  
Robert B. Hartford

Objective. To evaluate the current knowledge on the relationship between infant sleep position and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and to determine how the information can be used to guide further activities in the United States. Methods. Data from international vital statistics, epidemiologic studies of SIDS risk factors, and studies of outcomes of public health interventions that advocated nonprone sleeping to reduce the risk for SIDS were discussed at a meeting held by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) with cosponsorship from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) on January 13, and 14, 1994. Results. Trends in postneonatal mortality and SIDS rates from 1980 through 1992 were evaluated for Australia, Britain, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. All of the countries that experienced a rapid decline in prone sleeping also had reductions of approximately 50% in their SIDS rates. Postneonatal mortality rates dropped as well, with the reduction in SIDS being the primary contributor to the reported declines. The major behavioral change in all targeted populations was in sleep position. No significant changes were observed in the proportion of parents who smoked cigarettes, or in breast-feeding. Preliminary data from population-based studies showed there were no reported adverse outcomes associated with a change to side or back sleep position, such as an increase in deaths due to aspiration or in apparent life-threatening events. Conclusion. The overwhelming opinion of the assembled experts was that the evidence justified greater effort to reach parents with the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation that healthy infants, when being put down to sleep, be positioned on their side or back.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 94 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-107
Author(s):  
Carl E. Hunt

I fully support a comprehensive professional and public intervention campaign in the US to establish supine as the standard sleep position. Although other preventive health objectives can be included, the emphasis needs to be clearly focused on sleep position. Achieving the lowest possible prone prevalence rate in the US is thus the first goal of this new campaign. The second and equally important goal of the new campaign should be to utilize this opportunity to maximum advantage to enhance our knowledge regarding the epidemiological risk factors causally related to SIDS and their interactions, and the interactions between epidemiological and biological risk factors. In addition to quantifying changes in infant mortality and in infant sleep position, we will also need to characterize both the supine and the persistent prone infant groups in regard to all of the putative epidemiological risk factors for SIDS. This campaign can thus enhance our understanding of the epidemiological risk factors for SIDS as long as a significant decrease in prone prevalence can be achieved.


1995 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 402-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick L. Carolan ◽  
James R. Moore ◽  
Michael G. Luxenberg

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 98 (6) ◽  
pp. 1216-1218 ◽  
Author(s):  

This statement provides an update to the June 1992 American Academy of Pediatrics' policy, "Infant Positioning and SIDS," which recommended that healthy term infants be placed on their sides or backs to sleep. Recent data show that the original policy appears to have had a positive effect in decreasing the prevalence of prone sleeping significantly. Simultaneously, the SIDS rate in the United States has also dropped. New data also suggest that the supine position confers the lowest risk; however, the side position is still significantly safer than the prone position. Additional information regarding sleeping surface and exceptions to these recommendations are addressed.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 663-664
Author(s):  
Nicholas M. Nenson

Three circumstances may (thinly) be argued to qualify the present writer as an "expert" commentator on the article by Kelly et al. in this issue of Pediatrics (p. 511): first (and nearly 20 years ago), that most humbling of all experiences for the pediatrician, the dismissal from one's office of an apparently healthy 2-month-old infant with a minor upper respiratory tract infection who is brought dead on arrival to one's own hospital not three hours later, the unavailability of any autopsy data (difficult to obtain from unsubsidized pathologists in small suburban hospitals ruled by the coroner system of forensic medicine) forcing the diagnosis of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) on bewildered parents and shaken physician; last, participation in a recent task force assembled by the American Academy of Pediatrics in an attempt to generate an omniscient statement to cover the optimal management of a dreaded condition ("near-miss SIDS") whose identification is by definition uncertain and concerning which a minimal base of factual knowledge is only now beginning to accrue.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 510-511
Author(s):  
WARREN G. GUNTHEROTH ◽  
PHILIP S. SPIERS

To the Editor.— Hunt and Shannon1 decried the "precipitous action" of the task force of the American Academy of Pediatrics when the Academy recommended that "healthy infants, when being put down for sleep, be positioned on their side or back."2 Precipitous seems an inappropriate description of the Academy's conclusions which were based on 15 publications (dating back 14 years) with statistically significant increases in risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in the prone position. Hunt and Shannon complained that the data are "preliminary" and might lead to "iatrogenic disasters," as though the use of the prone position was novel and had unknown consequences, ignoring centuries of experience with the supine position in Asian cultures, which have extraordinarily low rates of SIDS.3


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document