4.6 Review

Parent-child bed-sharing: The good, the bad, and the burden of evidence

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE REVIEWS
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 4-27

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2016.03.003

关键词

Parent-child; Bed-sharing; Co-sleeping; Systematic review; Prevalence

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO): an NWO RUBICON prize [446-11-023]
  2. NWO VICI grant [453-09-003]
  3. Gravitation programme of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science
  4. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [024.001.003]
  5. European Research Council [AdG 669249]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The practice of parent and child sharing a sleeping surface, or 'bed-sharing', is one of the most controversial topics in parenting research. The lay literature has popularized and polarized this debate, offering on one hand claims of dangers, and on the other, of benefits - both physical and psychological - associated with bed-sharing. To address the scientific evidence behind such claims, we systematically reviewed 659 published papers (peer-reviewed, editorial pieces, and commentaries) on the topic of parent-child bed-sharing. Our review offers a narrative wallcthrough of the many subdomains of bed sharing research, including its many correlates (e.g., socioeconomic and cultural factors) and purported risks or outcomes (e.g., sudden infant death syndrome, sleep problems). We found general design limitations and a lack of convincing evidence in the literature, which preclude making strong generalizations. A heat-map based on 98 eligible studies aids the reader to visualize world-wide prevalence in bedasharing and highlights the need for further research in societies where bed-sharing is the norm. We urge for multiple subfields anthropology, psychology/psychiatry, and pediatrics to come together with the aim of understanding infant sleep and how nightly proximity to the parents influences children's social, emotional, and physical development. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据