0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Contribution |

Prevalence and Predictors of the Prone Sleep Position Among Inner-city Infants FREE

Ruth A. Brenner, MD, MPH; Bruce G. Simons-Morton, EdD, MPH; Brinda Bhaskar, MS; Nitin Mehta, MD; Vijaya L. Melnick, PhD; Mary Revenis, MD; Heinz W. Berendes, MD, MHS; John D. Clemens, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Division of Epidemiology, Statistics, and Prevention Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md (Drs Brenner, Simons-Morton, Clemens, and Berendes); the Research Triangle Institute, Rockville, Md (Ms Bhaskar); and Division of Neonatolgy, Georgetown University Hospital (Dr Mehta), Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of the District of Columbia (Dr Melnick), and Department of Neonatology, Children's National Medical Center (Dr Revenis), Washington, DC.


JAMA. 1998;280(4):341-346. doi:10.1001/jama.280.4.341.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context.— The prone sleep position is associated with an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), but few studies have assessed factors associated with the choice of infant sleep position.

Objectives.— To describe infant sleep position in a cohort of infants born to predominantly low-income, inner-city mothers and to identify predictors of the prone sleep position in this population.

Design.— Prospective birth cohort study.

Patients and Setting.— Three hundred ninety-four mother-infant dyads, systematically selected from 3 District of Columbia hospitals between August 1995 and September 1996. Mothers were interviewed shortly after delivery and again at 3 to 7 months postpartum.

Main Outcome Measures.— Position in which infants were placed for sleep on the night prior to the 3- to 7-month interview.

Results.— At 3 to 7 months of age, 157 infants (40%) were placed for sleep in the prone position. Independent predictors of prone sleep position included poverty (odds ratio [OR], 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-2.99), black race (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.05-4.04), presence of infant's grandmother in the home (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00), and intent, as measured shortly after delivery, to place the infant in the prone position (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.44-3.60). Importantly, of the 43 mothers who observed their infants in the prone sleep position while in the hospital, 40 (93%) intended to place their infants prone at home.

Conclusions.— A substantial proportion of infants in this predominantly low-income population were placed in the prone sleep position. Educational efforts should address both initial intentions and reinforcement of the correct sleep position, once initiated. Hospitals should ensure that healthy newborn infants are placed in the supine sleep position during the postpartum hospital stay.

RECENT STUDIES in the United States and abroad have shown that the prone sleep position is associated with an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).14 In countries where the prevalence of the prone sleep position has been reduced to less than 10%, the rates of SIDS have declined by more than 50%.59 Although the mechanism linking prone sleep position to SIDS has not been fully elucidated, research suggests that infants placed in the prone position may rebreathe expired air, leading to increases in blood carbon dioxide levels, hypoxia, and subsequent asphyxia or that the prone sleep position may cause infants to overheat through decreased dissipation of heat.1015

In 1992, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a statement recommending that full-term, healthy infants be placed down for sleep in either the back or side position.16 In June 1994, the US Public Health Service launched the "Back to Sleep" educational campaign in collaboration with the AAP, the SIDS Alliance, and the Association of SIDS Program Professionals.17 Currently, the AAP recommends the supine sleep position (rather than using a combination of either the supine or side positions) as the preferred infant sleep position.18 Since release of the initial AAP recommendations, national telephone surveys have documented a decline in the prevalence of the prone sleep position from 70% in 1992 to 24% in 1996.18

Common reasons that mothers give for choosing a particular sleep position are that the infant sleeps better or is more comfortable in the chosen position or that the mother used the position with previous children.1922 In this report, we describe the findings of the first prospective study in the United States to examine risk factors for infant sleep position in a low-income, inner-city population. The primary objectives were (1) to describe infant sleep position practices in a cohort of infants born to predominantly low-income, inner-city mothers, a group known to be at increased risk of SIDS, and (2) to identify predictors of the prone sleep position, particularly risk factors that may be amenable to interventions.

The primary focus of this cohort study was to identify determinants, as measured at birth, of immunization and other preventive health care practices, including infant sleep position. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of all participating study sites and collaborating institutions.

Study Sample

Mothers of singleton births were recruited shortly after delivery from 3 hospitals in the District of Columbia. Two of the selected hospitals had a high prevalence of low-income patients and enrollment at the third site was limited to nonprivate patients (patients cared for by staff physicians) to capture a sample of low-income, inner-city patients. Eligibility criteria included residency in the District of Columbia and the ability to speak and understand either English or Spanish. Infants were excluded if they were not born alive, died during the hospital stay, had birth weights less than 1800 g, had major congenital malformations identified within the first 4 hours of life, or were being placed for adoption. Infants whose mothers were incarcerated at the time of delivery were also excluded. Mothers were enrolled between August 1995, and September 1996. Recruitment days were chosen systematically to ensure a representative sample of weekend and midweek sample days. Sampling was for a 24-hour period on the selected days. The study included 1 interview with the mother shortly after delivery (the baseline interview) and a second interview when the infant was between the ages of 3 and 7 months (the follow-up interview). Mothers approached for enrollment in the study were given a layette set. Additionally, those who completed the follow-up interview were given $25.

Interviews

Baseline interviews were conducted by trained research assistants and included a face-to-face interview and a short self-administered questionnaire. The face-to-face interview included questions about sociodemographic and psychosocial factors, such as social support and health behaviors. The self-administered questionnaire contained potentially sensitive questions about depression, drug and alcohol use, violence in the home, and whether the pregnancy was wanted. Information about infant birth weight, gestational age, infant sex, type of delivery, parity, and maternal smoking during the pregnancy was abstracted from delivery and newborn hospital records. Of the 452 baseline interviews, 417 (92%) were conducted in the hospital during the postpartum stay. Four hundred five (90%) were completed within 48 hours of delivery and, with the exception of 1 interview that was conducted at 18 days postpartum, all interviews were completed within 2 weeks of delivery.

Mothers were interviewed again between November 1995 and March 1997 when infants were between 3 and 7 months old. Outcomes of interest included infant sleep position, immunizations, and other health care practices. Although most interviews were face-to-face, 28 (7%) were conducted by telephone at the mother's request or due to scheduling difficulties. Interviewers did not have access to the baseline interviews at the time that they conducted the follow-up interviews.

Sleep Position

"Intended sleep position" was defined as the sleep position in which mothers planned to place their infants for sleep, as ascertained shortly after delivery. "Usual sleep position" referred to the position in which the mother reported usually placing her infant for sleep when the mother was interviewed at follow-up. "Last night's sleep position" was the position in which the infant was placed on the night prior to the follow-up interview. "Prone" was defined as sleeping on the stomach, and "nonprone" denoted either the side or back position. In bivariate and multivariate analyses, if prone was 1 of the reported sleep positions, the response was coded as prone. We reasoned that infants who were being placed for sleep in the prone position, all or some of the time, were not in compliance with AAP recommendations and were at increased risk for SIDS.

At baseline mothers were asked about the intended infant sleep position and their reasons for choosing that position. The influence of health providers was assessed by asking respondents to recall their observations of hospital nurses putting their infants down for sleep (hereafter referred to as "hospital sleep position") and by asking if a physician or nurse had discussed sleep position with the respondent since the time she had become pregnant.

At follow-up, mothers were asked about the infant's usual sleep position and about last night's sleep position. Respondents were also asked why they chose the reported usual sleep position. To assess the influence of health providers, mothers were asked if, at the time the child was born, anyone from the hospital had discussed sleep position with them. Additionally, for each reported well-child care visit, mothers were asked if sleep position had been discussed. If more than 1 position was cited as an intended or usual sleep position, multiple responses were coded. Mothers could also provide multiple reasons for choosing the intended or usual sleep position.

Statistical Methods

Bivariate associations between independent variables and outcome variables were assessed using χ2 or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables and the Student t test for continuous variables. Factors significantly associated with the outcome at P<.10 in bivariate analyses were introduced into multivariate logistic regression models to determine the independent predictive effects of these factors. A backward elimination algorithm, with an exit P value of <.05, was used to select variables having an independent contribution to the model. All statistical tests were interpreted in a 2-tailed fashion to estimate P values. The sample size required for the study was calculated to address the immunization outcome, and, thus, the assumptions and differences are not relevant to the current study.

Assembly of the Study Population

Of the 1802 infants born on the sampled days, 518 were eligible for enrollment in the study. The most common reasons for ineligibility were residency outside the District of Columbia (n=704), being a private patient at site C (n=373), and birth weight less than 1800 g (n=91). Four hundred fifty-two eligible mothers (87%) gave informed consent and were successfully enrolled. Based on information abstracted from medical records, eligible mother-infant dyads enrolled in the study did not differ significantly from eligible dyads not enrolled with respect to race, age, marital status, type of insurance, mother's employment status, type of delivery, birth weight, gestational age at delivery, or infant sex. Of the 452 mothers interviewed at baseline, 395 (87%) were located and interviewed at 3 to 7 months postpartum. Mothers lost to follow-up were not significantly different from those who completed the follow-up interview with respect to any of the above baseline characteristics. All but 1 of the 395 mothers who completed the follow-up interview reported that they had lived with their infant most of the time since leaving the hospital. Data from these 394 mother-infant dyads are reported below.

Mothers were predominantly black (334 [85%]), unmarried (285 [72%]), and non-Hispanic (325 [82%]) (Table 1). Two hundred fifty-nine (66%) of the mothers had household incomes below the poverty level23 (mean household income, $12600) and 171 (43%) had not completed high school. The mean maternal age was 25 years (range, 13-43 years), and 85 (22%) were teenage mothers. The mean age of the infant at the time of the follow-up interview was 129 days (range, 90-228 days).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.—Sociodemographic Characteristics of Mothers and Infants Enrolled in the Study
Infant Sleep Position

When interviewed shortly after delivery, 137 mothers (35%) reported that they intended to place the infant down for sleep in a prone position, 243 (62%) said they would place their infants in a nonprone position, and 14 (4%) said they did not know or had not thought about which sleep position they would use (Table 2). At 3 to 7 months postpartum, 143 mothers (36%) usually placed their infants in the prone position, 30 (8%) used the prone position as one of the usual positions, and 220 (56%) usually placed their infants in the side or supine position. On the night prior to the follow-up interview, 157 mothers (40%) had placed their infants in the prone position.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.—Prevalence of Intended Sleep Position, Usual Sleep Position, and Last Night's Sleep Position*

Of the 137 mothers who indicated at baseline that they intended to place the infant in the prone sleep position, 77 (56%) reported that their infants usually were placed for sleep in the prone position, and 72 mothers (53%) reported that the infant slept in a prone position on the night prior to the follow-up interview. Similarly, of the 243 mothers who intended to place the infant in a nonprone position, 154 (63%) reported that the infant usually was placed down for sleep in the nonprone position, and 158 mothers (65%) reported that their infants had slept nonprone on the night prior to the follow-up interview.

At baseline, the most common reason cited for the intended sleep position, both prone and nonprone, was to prevent choking (Table 3). However, at follow-up 100 (58%) of the mothers who chose the prone position cited infant comfort as 1 of the reasons. Common reasons cited for using the nonprone sleep position included the prevention of choking (73 [33%]), infant comfort (52 [24%]), and the prevention of SIDS (37 [17%]). Thirty-nine (18%) of the mothers who placed their infants in nonprone positions said they did so at the advice of medical personnel.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.—Reasons Mothers Gave for Intended and Usual Infant Sleep Position*
Associations Between Baseline Variables and Last Night's Sleep Position

There was high agreement (85%) between usual sleep position and last night's sleep position. We assessed predictors of last night's sleep position because we regarded this as a less subjective outcome. In bivariate analyses, factors measured at baseline that were significantly (P<.05) associated with the use of the prone sleep position included black race, maternal age younger than 20 years, single marital status, poverty, less than 12 years of education, vaginal delivery, the presence of infant's grandmother in the home, prone hospital sleep position, and intent to place the infant prone (Table 4, Part A, and Table 4, Part B). Although 69% of mothers indicated that they had received advice on sleep position while in the hospital and 64% received advice at a well-child care visit prior to 90 days postpartum, neither of these variables was significantly associated with infant sleep position. Other variables of interest not associated with infant sleep position included age of the infant at follow-up, the type of bed in which the infant slept, and whether the infant shared a bed with another person.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.—Associations Between Infants' Baseline (Postpartum) Characteristics and Last Night's Sleep Position, Ascertained at 3 to 7 Months
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.—Associations Between Infants' Baseline (Postpartum) Characteristics and Last Night's Sleep Position, Ascertained at 3 to 7 Months (cont)

Information about whether the mother had observed the infant's hospital sleep position was available for 291 respondents (74%). Presumably, at the time of the baseline interview, the remaining respondents had not yet observed the infant sleep position used by hospital nurses. Information on both hospital sleep position and intended sleep position was available for 284 mother-infant dyads. Of the 43 mothers who had observed their infants in the prone sleep position while in the hospital, 40 (93%) intended to place their infants for sleep in the prone position at home. In contrast, only 58 (24%) of the 241 mothers who observed a nonprone hospital sleep position intended to use the prone position at home (OR, 42.07; 95% CI, 12.55-141.06—data not shown). This finding suggests that observed hospital sleep position may modify maternal intentions and ultimately the choice of a particular sleep position. Information on both hospital sleep position and last night's sleep position was available for 283 mother-infant dyads. Of the 41 mothers in this subset who had observed their infants in the prone sleep position while in the hospital, 23 (56%) indicated at follow-up that they had placed their infants in the prone position last night, as compared with 83 (34%) of mothers who had observed a nonprone sleep position while at the hospital (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.25-4.79) (Table 4, Part A, and Table 4, Part B).

In multivariate analyses (model 1, Table 5), black race (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.05-4.04), poverty (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.10-2.99), presence of the infant's grandmother in the home (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00), and intent to use the prone sleep position (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.44-3.60) were independently associated with last night's prone sleep position. Observed hospital sleep position was not included in this model as information was missing for 26% of respondents. We lacked sufficient power in our study to fully examine variations in risk factors for the prone sleep position by race and ethnicity. However, among black mothers there was a suggestion of an independent association between being single and use of the prone sleep position (adjusted OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.42-4.78) and delivering vaginally and use of the prone sleep position (adjusted OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.13-3.56).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5.—Adjusted Odds Ratios for Factors Associated With Infant Prone Sleep Position Last Night

Due to the potential importance of sleep position practices in the hospital as a focus for future interventions and the strong association noted between hospital sleep position and maternal intentions, we reanalyzed predictors of last night's sleep position, including observed hospital sleep position but excluding intended sleep position as an independent variable. In this multivariate analysis (model 2, Table 5), the presence of a grandmother in the home (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.10-3.27) and observed prone hospital sleep position (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.19-4.64) were independently associated with use of the prone sleep position at 3 to 7 months of age. Income and race were not significant in this model.

More than 3 years after the initial AAP recommendations and substantial public education about infant sleep position, a high proportion of infants in the low-income, inner-city population included in this study were placed for sleep in the prone position. A number of factors—including black race, the presence of the infant's grandmother in the house, baseline intentions, and poverty—were found to be associated with an increased risk of using the prone sleep position.

Study Limitations

Several study limitations should be noted. Only a limited number of psychosocial variables were examined as possible predictors of sleep position. Although instructional brochures on infant sleep position were reportedly included with the discharge materials at 2 of the 3 hospitals, we did not confirm that mothers received these materials, nor did we obtain details about verbal advice given by providers. Finally, in the current study, although mothers were selected to represent District of Columbia residents of lower socioeconomic status, our sampling scheme was not population based.

Relation to Previous Studies

Our finding of a 40% prevalence of use of the prone sleep position at 3 to 7 months is higher than national prevalence estimates for 1996 of 24% of infants younger than 8 months being placed in the prone position among all races, but our findings are comparable to the 43% prevalence reported among blacks.24 Consistent with other studies, the most common reason for choosing the prone position was infant comfort.19 Infants who sleep in a prone position have fewer spontaneous arousals and sleep for longer periods than those who sleep in a supine position.25

The association between low income and use of the prone sleep position identified in the current study is consistent with findings in Tasmania and New Zealand, where low socioeconomic status was found to be associated with the prone sleep position after, but not before, implementation of public health campaigns to avoid use of the prone sleep position.1,26 In the current study, we may have actually underestimated the magnitude of these associations by examining these associations within a population that was predominantly low income. Such populations may adopt new health practices more slowly than higher-income populations, perhaps because they have fewer information sources from which to learn about innovations.27 In support of this, research in Tasmania has identified an association between markers of low health education uptake and use of the prone sleep position.28

We also identified an independent association between race and sleep position. Blacks were more likely than persons of other races (in this study primarily Hispanics) to use the prone sleep position (adjusted OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.05-4.04). In Washington State, African Americans were more likely to place their infants in a prone position compared with non-African Americas, but this association was not statistically significant (adjusted OR 3.5, CI 0.8-16.3).29 A cross-sectional, practice-based survey in Ohio also found no significant association between either race or family income and infant sleep position.30 Other independent predictors of use of the prone sleep position identified in the current study included the presence of the infant's grandmother in the household, observed hospital sleep position, and baseline intentions, none of which have been reported in previous publications. Studies have, however, documented the important influence that grandmothers can exert on health decisions for their grandchildren, such as the use of an emergency department31 or the timeliness of obtaining childhood immunizations.32

Implications for Interventions During the Postpartum Period

All hospitals in the current study reported that, following the 1992 AAP recommendations, nurses were verbally instructed to place infants in either the supine or side sleep position. One of the hospitals participating in this study had a written policy on infant sleep position in the form of a letter to nursery staff, which was posted in the nursery reminding its staff to use the supine or side sleeping position, and 2 of the 3 hospitals placed stickers on each bassinet reminding nurses to use the nonprone position. Despite these differences in hospital practices, the percentage of mothers who reported that they had observed their infant in the prone sleep position was consistent among the 3 sites, ranging from 14% to 17%. Similarly, in a 1995 national survey of newborn nurseries, 11% of head nurses reported the prone position as 1 of the sleep positions used for healthy newborn infants (Marian Willinger, PhD, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, written communication, April 1998). In this study, mothers who observed their infants being placed in the prone position by hospital personnel were significantly more likely to indicate the intention to place the infant in the prone position and also more likely to do so compared with mothers who observed their infants in a nonprone position. Because people learn through observation,33 modeling by health care providers can be a powerful influence on behavior.

Mothers, in this study, who reported that they had discussed sleep position with a health care clinician during the postpartum stay were less likely to place their infants in the prone position than mothers who had not had such discussion (38% vs 46%). Although this association was not statistically significant, at least 1 other study has also suggested that advice given to parents during the postpartum period may be effective in altering infant sleep position.34 Ideally, hospitals should adopt and implement policies on infant sleep position that are consistent with current recommendations and should monitor compliance with policies once adopted. Clinicians should counsel mothers on the use of the correct infant sleep position and demonstrate its use by placing infants in the supine sleep position while in the hospital.

Implications for Interventions Beyond the Postpartum Period

Although sleep position at 3 to 7 months was associated with maternal intentions measured shortly after delivery, approximately a third of mothers who intended to place their infants to sleep in a nonprone position indicated at follow-up that they had placed their infants in the prone position during the previous night. Despite initial intentions, mothers may be influenced to place their infants in the prone position if they perceive that the infant would be more comfortable or would sleep longer in this position. Alternatively, an influential other person, such as a grandmother, might persuade the mother to place the infant in the prone position. Therefore, counseling and reinforcement on the importance of the supine sleep position should continue beyond the initial hospital stay and, when possible, be directed to both the primary caregiver and other extended family members, such as grandmothers. As noted by Ponsonby and colleagues, educational efforts should "focus on the use of appropriate methods to settle an infant without resorting to the prone position."28

Dwyer T, Ponsonby AL, Newman NM, Gibbons LE. Prospective cohort study of prone sleeping position and sudden infant death syndrome.  Lancet.1991;337:1244-1247.
Fleming PJ, Gilbert R, Azaz Y.  et al.  Interaction between bedding and sleeping position in the sudden infant death syndrome: a population based case control study.  BMJ.1990;301:85-89.
Taylor JA, Krieger JW, Reay DT.  et al.  Prone sleep position and the sudden infant death syndrome in King County, Washington: a case-control study.  J Pediatr.1996;128:626-630.
Mitchell EA, Scragg R, Stewart AW.  et al.  Results from the first year of the New Zealand cot death study.  N Z Med J.1991;104:71-76.
Willinger M. Sleep position and sudden infant death syndrome.  JAMA.1995;273:818-819.
Dwyer T, Ponsonby AL, Blizzard L, Newman NM, Cochrane JA. The contribution of changes in the prevalence of prone sleeping position to the decline in sudden infant death syndrome in Tasmania.  JAMA.1995;273:783-789.
Willinger M, Hoffman MA, Hartford RB. Infant sleep position and risk for sudden infant death syndrome: report of meeting held January 13 and 14, 1994, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.  Pediatrics.1994;93:814-819.
Mitchell EA, Brunt JM, Evard C. Reduction in mortality from sudden infant death syndrome in New Zealand.  Arch Dis Child.1994;70:291-294.
Markestad T, Skadberg B, Hordvik E, Morild I, Irgens LM. Sleeping position and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): effect of an intervention programme to avoid prone sleeping.  Acta Paediatr.1995;84:375-378.
Kemp JS, Trach BT. Sudden death in infants sleeping on polystyrene-filled cushions.  N Engl J Med.1991;324:1858-1864.
Kemp JS. Rebreathing of exhaled gases: importance as a mechanism for the causal association between prone sleep and sudden infant death syndrome.  Sleep.1996;19(suppl):S263-S266.
Nelson EA, Taylor BJ, Weatherall IL. Sleeping position and infant bedding may predispose to hyperthermia and the sudden infant death syndrome.  Lancet.1989;1:199-201.
Ponsonby AL, Dwyer T, Gibbons LE, Cochrane JA, Jones ME, McCall JM. Thermal environment and sudden infant death syndrome: case-control study.  BMJ.1992;304:277-282.
Ponsonby A, Dwyer T, Gibbons L, Cochrane J, Wang Y. Factors potentiating the risk of sudden infant death syndrome associated with the prone sleep position.  N Engl J Med.1993;329:377-382.
Sawczenko A, Fleming PJ. Thermal stress, sleeping position, and the sudden infant death syndrome.  Sleep.1996;19(suppl):S267-S270.
American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Infant Positioning and SIDS.  Positioning and SIDS.  Pediatrics.1992;89:1120-1126.
Willinger M. SIDS prevention.  Pediatr Ann.1995;24:358-364.
American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Infant Positioning and SIDS.  Positioning and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): update.  Pediatrics.1996;98:1216-1218.
Ponsonby AL, Dwyer T, Kasl SV, Cochrane JA, Newman NM. An assessment of the impact of public health activities to reduce the prevalence of the prone sleeping position during infancy: the Tasmanian cohort study.  Prev Med.1994;23:402-408.
Hiley CM, Morley C. What do mothers remember about the "Back to Sleep" campaign?  Arch Dis Child.1995;73:496-497.
Burd L. Prevalence of prone sleeping position and selected infant care practices of North Dakota infants: a comparison of Whites and Native Americans.  Public Health Rep.1994;109:446-449.
Johnson MC, Coletta FA, Hether N, Cotter R. "Back to sleep" program [letter].  Pediatrics.1996;98:163-165.
 The Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines.  61 Federal Register.8286-8288 (1996).
Willinger M, Hoffman J, Wu K.  et al.  Factors associated with the transition to nonprone sleep positions in the United States: the National Infant Sleep Position Study.  JAMA.1998;280:329-335.
Kahn A, Groswasser J, Sottiaux M, Rebuffat E, Franco P, Dramaix M. Prone or supine body position and sleep characteristics in infants.  Pediatrics.1993;91:1112-1115.
Tuohy PG, Counsell AM, Geddis DC. Sociodemographic factors associated with sleeping position and location.  Arch Dis Child.1993;69:664-666.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations . 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press; 1983.
Ponsonby AL, Dwyer T, Kasl SV, Couper D, Cochrane JA. Correlates of prone infant sleeping position by period of birth.  Arch Dis Child.1995;72:204-208.
Taylor JA, Davis RL. Risk factors for the infant prone sleep position.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.1996;150:834-837.
Chessare JB, Hunt CE, Bourguignon C.the Peditric Research in Office Practices Network.  A community-based survey of infant sleep position.  Pediatrics.1995;96:893-896.
Ellen JM, Ott MA, Schwarz DF. The relationship between grandmothers' involvement in child care and emergency department utilization.  Pediatr Emerg Care.1995;11:223-225.
Bates AS, Fitzgerald JF, Dittus RS, Wolinsky FD. Risk factors for underimmunization in poor urban infants.  JAMA.1994;272:1105-1110.
Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc; 1986.
Ray BJ, Metcalf SC, Franco SM, Mitchell CK. Infant sleep position instruction and parental practice comparison of a private pediatric office and inner-city clinic.  Pediatrics.1997;99:E12.

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.—Sociodemographic Characteristics of Mothers and Infants Enrolled in the Study
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.—Prevalence of Intended Sleep Position, Usual Sleep Position, and Last Night's Sleep Position*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.—Reasons Mothers Gave for Intended and Usual Infant Sleep Position*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.—Associations Between Infants' Baseline (Postpartum) Characteristics and Last Night's Sleep Position, Ascertained at 3 to 7 Months
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.—Associations Between Infants' Baseline (Postpartum) Characteristics and Last Night's Sleep Position, Ascertained at 3 to 7 Months (cont)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5.—Adjusted Odds Ratios for Factors Associated With Infant Prone Sleep Position Last Night

References

Dwyer T, Ponsonby AL, Newman NM, Gibbons LE. Prospective cohort study of prone sleeping position and sudden infant death syndrome.  Lancet.1991;337:1244-1247.
Fleming PJ, Gilbert R, Azaz Y.  et al.  Interaction between bedding and sleeping position in the sudden infant death syndrome: a population based case control study.  BMJ.1990;301:85-89.
Taylor JA, Krieger JW, Reay DT.  et al.  Prone sleep position and the sudden infant death syndrome in King County, Washington: a case-control study.  J Pediatr.1996;128:626-630.
Mitchell EA, Scragg R, Stewart AW.  et al.  Results from the first year of the New Zealand cot death study.  N Z Med J.1991;104:71-76.
Willinger M. Sleep position and sudden infant death syndrome.  JAMA.1995;273:818-819.
Dwyer T, Ponsonby AL, Blizzard L, Newman NM, Cochrane JA. The contribution of changes in the prevalence of prone sleeping position to the decline in sudden infant death syndrome in Tasmania.  JAMA.1995;273:783-789.
Willinger M, Hoffman MA, Hartford RB. Infant sleep position and risk for sudden infant death syndrome: report of meeting held January 13 and 14, 1994, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.  Pediatrics.1994;93:814-819.
Mitchell EA, Brunt JM, Evard C. Reduction in mortality from sudden infant death syndrome in New Zealand.  Arch Dis Child.1994;70:291-294.
Markestad T, Skadberg B, Hordvik E, Morild I, Irgens LM. Sleeping position and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): effect of an intervention programme to avoid prone sleeping.  Acta Paediatr.1995;84:375-378.
Kemp JS, Trach BT. Sudden death in infants sleeping on polystyrene-filled cushions.  N Engl J Med.1991;324:1858-1864.
Kemp JS. Rebreathing of exhaled gases: importance as a mechanism for the causal association between prone sleep and sudden infant death syndrome.  Sleep.1996;19(suppl):S263-S266.
Nelson EA, Taylor BJ, Weatherall IL. Sleeping position and infant bedding may predispose to hyperthermia and the sudden infant death syndrome.  Lancet.1989;1:199-201.
Ponsonby AL, Dwyer T, Gibbons LE, Cochrane JA, Jones ME, McCall JM. Thermal environment and sudden infant death syndrome: case-control study.  BMJ.1992;304:277-282.
Ponsonby A, Dwyer T, Gibbons L, Cochrane J, Wang Y. Factors potentiating the risk of sudden infant death syndrome associated with the prone sleep position.  N Engl J Med.1993;329:377-382.
Sawczenko A, Fleming PJ. Thermal stress, sleeping position, and the sudden infant death syndrome.  Sleep.1996;19(suppl):S267-S270.
American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Infant Positioning and SIDS.  Positioning and SIDS.  Pediatrics.1992;89:1120-1126.
Willinger M. SIDS prevention.  Pediatr Ann.1995;24:358-364.
American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Infant Positioning and SIDS.  Positioning and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): update.  Pediatrics.1996;98:1216-1218.
Ponsonby AL, Dwyer T, Kasl SV, Cochrane JA, Newman NM. An assessment of the impact of public health activities to reduce the prevalence of the prone sleeping position during infancy: the Tasmanian cohort study.  Prev Med.1994;23:402-408.
Hiley CM, Morley C. What do mothers remember about the "Back to Sleep" campaign?  Arch Dis Child.1995;73:496-497.
Burd L. Prevalence of prone sleeping position and selected infant care practices of North Dakota infants: a comparison of Whites and Native Americans.  Public Health Rep.1994;109:446-449.
Johnson MC, Coletta FA, Hether N, Cotter R. "Back to sleep" program [letter].  Pediatrics.1996;98:163-165.
 The Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines.  61 Federal Register.8286-8288 (1996).
Willinger M, Hoffman J, Wu K.  et al.  Factors associated with the transition to nonprone sleep positions in the United States: the National Infant Sleep Position Study.  JAMA.1998;280:329-335.
Kahn A, Groswasser J, Sottiaux M, Rebuffat E, Franco P, Dramaix M. Prone or supine body position and sleep characteristics in infants.  Pediatrics.1993;91:1112-1115.
Tuohy PG, Counsell AM, Geddis DC. Sociodemographic factors associated with sleeping position and location.  Arch Dis Child.1993;69:664-666.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations . 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press; 1983.
Ponsonby AL, Dwyer T, Kasl SV, Couper D, Cochrane JA. Correlates of prone infant sleeping position by period of birth.  Arch Dis Child.1995;72:204-208.
Taylor JA, Davis RL. Risk factors for the infant prone sleep position.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.1996;150:834-837.
Chessare JB, Hunt CE, Bourguignon C.the Peditric Research in Office Practices Network.  A community-based survey of infant sleep position.  Pediatrics.1995;96:893-896.
Ellen JM, Ott MA, Schwarz DF. The relationship between grandmothers' involvement in child care and emergency department utilization.  Pediatr Emerg Care.1995;11:223-225.
Bates AS, Fitzgerald JF, Dittus RS, Wolinsky FD. Risk factors for underimmunization in poor urban infants.  JAMA.1994;272:1105-1110.
Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc; 1986.
Ray BJ, Metcalf SC, Franco SM, Mitchell CK. Infant sleep position instruction and parental practice comparison of a private pediatric office and inner-city clinic.  Pediatrics.1997;99:E12.
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 64

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Quick Reference

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Quick Reference