4.2 Article

Short duration of skin-to-skin contact: Effects on growth and breastfeeding

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH
卷 43, 期 12, 页码 831-836

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2007.01198.x

关键词

head growth; skin-to-skin contact; VLBW infant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To compare weight gain and head growth in very-low-birthweight (VLBW, < 1501 g) infants with or without exposure to short duration of skin-to-skin contact (STSC) during their stay in a neonatal intensive care unit. Stable VLBW infants were randomised into either STSC or control group. Parents of the STSC group were encouraged to provide STSC for at least 1 h daily. One hundred and forty-six infants were randomised, but only 126 were enrolled (STSC group: n = 64; Controls: n = 62). Infants in the STSC group had better mean weekly increase in head circumference (1.0 cm (SD = 0.3) vs. 0.7 cm (SD = 0.3); P < 0.0001) and higher breastfeeding rate at discharge (29.7% vs. 14.5%; P = 0.04). Although the mean duration of maternal education was longer in STSC (13.0 vs. 12.1 years; P = 0.04) than in controls, linear regression analysis showed that the significant predictors associated with weekly head growth were exposure to STSC (unstandardised coefficient: 0.2; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.1, 0.3; P < 0.0001) and head circumference of infants at the time of enrolment (unstandardised coefficient: -0.05; 95% CI: -08, -0.03; P < 0.0001); the number of years of maternal education was not a significant predictor. Logistic regression analysis showed that the only significant predictors of successful breastfeeding at discharge were receiving expressed breast milk at enrolment (adjusted OR: 4.1; 95% CI: 1.4, 11.7; P = 0.009) and receiving expressed breast milk during intervention period (adjusted OR: 8.3; 95% CI: 2.8, 24.4; P < 0.0001); exposure to STSC and maternal education were not significant predictors. Exposure to short duration of STSC may promote head growth in VLBW infants.

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

4.2
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