Science & Sensibility

By Geradine Simkins, CNM, MSN, Executive Director of Midwives Alliance of North America

This week, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement on home birth. While the statement affirmed “the right of women to make a medically informed decision about delivery”, many advocates expressed concerns. The statement failed to recognize Certified Professional Midwives, the providers most likely to attend a home birth in the United States. In this response, the Midwives Alliance of North America helps families, providers, and policy makers understand the critical role CPMs play in safe, healthy birth options. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

High-quality out-of-hospital newborn and postpartum care is standard for midwives

 

The Midwives Alliance of North America welcomes the primary concept communicated in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ April 24, 2013, policy statement entitled “Planned Home Birth.” As should be expected, AAP reminds its practitioners that newborn infants—regardless of the setting in which they are born—deserve an equal and unbiased, high-quality standard of care. The Midwives Alliance joins with AAP in affirming the need for a collaborative and integrated maternity care system that addresses the needs of all mothers and infants, regardless of the provider type or birth setting a woman chooses.

We are disappointed, however, in AAP’s decision to align with the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecologists’ policy on home birth. Serving the needs of the growing number of families choosing to birth at home, Certified Professional Midwives attend the majority of intended home births in the U.S., when a skilled attendant is present, making them the primary care providers for newborns in the home setting.

Certified Professional Midwives are skilled maternity care providers

AAP’s itemized recommendations for infant and newborn care, contained in their policy statement, are standard practice for credentialed midwives. In that respect, we find much with which we agree. These standard newborn exams, screens, and preventative care practices are wholly part of a credentialed midwife’s scope of practice, and further endorsed by individual state health departments. We also note that as AAP Neonatal Resuscitation Program certificate holders (required for certification and recertification), credentialed midwives follow guidelines laid out in AAP’s recommendations, and typically surpass those standard recommendations by having at least two NRP- and CPR-trained attendants at out-of-hospital births.

In fact, the AAP’s guidelines for the care of infants intentionally born at home parallel those standards practiced by trained midwives in all birth settings. The practices listed—such as working medical equipment, emergency plans of transfer, thorough newborn exams, and so forth—are professional standards exhibited and documented by credentialed midwives, regardless of the place of birth.

The AAP policy statement, however, did not recognize or acknowledge Certified Professional Midwives (CPM), indicating that AAP may not have a thorough understanding of the training, skills, knowledge, and abilities of this country’s primary maternity care provider for infants born out of the hospital. The Certified Professional Midwife is the only national midwifery credential that requires practitioners to be trained specifically to provide prenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care in out-of-hospital settings. CPMs are knowledgeable, expert and independent midwifery practitioners who have met the standards for certification set by the North American Registry of Midwives (NARM). NARM is accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) to issue the professional credential of Certified Professional Midwife, which is the same agency that accredits the American Midwifery Certification Board to issue the professional credentials of Certified-Nurse Midwife, and Certified Midwife.  

Midwives are the providers of choice for out-of-hospital births, whether they occur at home or in freestanding birth centers. Offered since 1994, the CPM is currently the basis for licensure in 27 states while 11 additional states are actively seeking CPM licensure. In fact, one in nine newly certified midwives in the U.S. are Certified Professional Midwives.  

The AAP policy statement endorses birth center maternity care, which is another area in which we are in agreement. Recent numbers from the American Association of Birth Centers (AABC) indicate that a significant proportion of accredited birth centers are owned and operated by Certified Professional Midwives. A January 2013 study, The National Birth Center Study II , conducted by AABC and published in the Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, the official journal of the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM), highlights the benefits for women who seek care at midwife-led birth centers. Findings also reinforce longstanding evidence that providers at midwife-led birth centers provide safe and effective health care for women during pregnancy, labor, birth, and the postpartum period.  

Midwives provide high-quality care that meets both national and international guidelines 

In highlighting the ethic of high-quality care for all infants across the spectrum—regardless of the site of birth—it should be noted that Certified Professional Midwives provide care intentionally similar to that of nurse-midwives and physicians. Yet we also know that CPMs are able to offer additional and valued care in terms of frequency of home visits and intense monitoring of newborns in their homes in the first weeks of life—a benefit not normally conferred to women and babies who have experienced hospital births.

This high-quality midwifery care includes routine newborn APGAR assessments, comprehensive head-to-toe physical examinations, measurements of length, head, abdomen and birth weight, monitoring vital signs including thermoregulation, assessment of respiratory sounds and patterns, assessments of cardiac sounds and peripheral pulses, assessment of gestational age and physical maturity, neuromuscular assessments, and assistance with initiation and ongoing assessment of breastfeeding. All findings are recorded in patient records and shared with mothers, per professional standards.

In addition, CPMs provide newborns with Vitamin K treatment, antibiotic eye ointment, umbilical cord care, metabolic newborn screening, glucose and bilirubin testing as indicated, and either perform Otoacoustic Emissions (OAE) hearing screens or refer to area audiologists. Midwives in a number of states are moving toward, or already offering, pulse-oximetry screening for Critical Congenital Heart Defects (CCHD) per AAP guidelines, in advance of many hospital systems. In the rare cases when newborns require consultation or referral, infants are transferred to the tertiary care system, and pediatricians where available, for active management.

Not only do Certified Professional Midwives and Certified Nurse-Midwives who attend home births provide the level of care outlined by the AAP, they provide it in a personalized, woman-centered, family-centered, culturally competent, and individualized manner that is qualitatively different from the customary assembly-line postpartum care commonly experienced in U.S. hospitals.

For example, in a home birth setting, the midwife typically conducts the initial newborn exam in the presence of the mother and family, which does not disrupt the crucial process of mother-infant bonding and breastfeeding, and is focused on being instructive to the family. Midwives provide holistic care to the mother-baby dyad in concordance with World Health Organization’s Baby-Friendly best practices.

As a way of illustrating important differences in care practices, we can point to the recent Breastfeeding Report Card issued by the CDC (2012) that indicates only six percent of U.S. hospitals are offering care that aligns with the international best practices outlined by Healthy People 2020.   By contrast in a 2005 study, 95% of babies born at home under the care of Certified Professional Midwives were exclusively breastfeeding at six weeks of age (Johnson & Daviss, 2005). This is just one area where midwives are well-trained, skilled, and uniquely positioned to help families succeed.

An opportunity for collaboration and integrated care 

Physician conversations about home birth and midwife-led birth will be better informed and more useful to maternity care consumers if AAP is able to become more cognizant of important changes in the landscape of U.S. midwifery. 

The release of the AAP policy statement on care of newborns born at home is an opportunity to reinforce the need for professional and seamless collaboration with members of community health care teams. We view this statement’s release as an opportunity to align best practices for all parties who care for and support families choosing home birth.

The Midwives Alliance stands ready to work with other pediatric and maternity care providers to establish best practices in the postpartum period to not merely provide the basic level of care in the first hours, days and weeks of life for the newborn as outlined in the latest AAP statement, but to elevate that standard to include support for breastfeeding and the personal attention that can prevent infant death and improve maternal and child health.  Babies born in all settings deserve this kind of care.

About Geradine Simkins

Geradine Simkins, CNM, MSN is an activist, midwife and author. She began as a direct-entry home birth midwife in 1976 and became a nurse-midwife twenty years later. For over thirty years she has provided health care for women, infants and families in a variety of settings, including attendance at births in the home, a freestanding birth center, and hospitals. Geradine’s work with migrant farmworkers and American Indian tribes focuses on addressing health care disparities and engendering a more equitable maternity care system for all women and infants.  Geradine is currently the Executive Director of Midwives Alliance of North America, a professional organization that promotes excellence in midwifery and is dedicated to unifying and strengthening the profession, thereby increasing access to quality health care and improving outcomes for women, babies and their families. She is the editor of the recently published book entitled Into These Hands: Wisdom from Midwives, an anthology of the life stories of 25 remarkable women who have dedicated their lives and careers to the path of midwifery and social change.  More info about Geraldine Simkins can be found here.

Sharon Muza ACOG, American Academy of Pediatrics, Babies, Delayed Cord Clamping, Home Birth, informed Consent, Maternity Care, Midwifery, Transforming Maternity Care AAP, ACNM, ACOG, CNM, CPM, Geraldine Simkins, Home Birth, MANA, Midwifery Care, Midwives Alliance of North America, newborn

Regular contributor Kathy Morelli takes a look at babies and media and technology exposure.  If you are working with expectant families or with families parenting young children, you have an opportunity to share the impact of media on developing brains.  Take a moment to read today’s post and share how you bring up this topic with the families you work with. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility. 

Today’s babies are definitely digital natives! They grow up in a world saturated by media. The research about the effects of media on child development is in its infancy (no pun intended). 

On one hand, some research suggests when the developing brain is over-exposed to multi-tasking, attentional and learning difficulties can result. On the other hand, other research contradicts this finding. Additionally, there are lots of claims from DVD and TV producers that using their media enhances learning and social growth. 

What’s a parent to believe?

First Off: Parent with Awareness and Moderation

Put some perspective on this issue by reframing parenting around media issues as similar to parenting around other issues. 

Parenting with awareness and moderation through the infant years, around any topic, depends on three important tips.     

Tip One: Parent, Heal Thyself 

Encourage parents to be aware of their own emotional reactions to their baby. Have them own their emotions as their own, not their baby’s.

If the parents themselves have felt abandoned as a child, they may need to do their own hard emotional work, centering on their reactions to their baby’s dependency needs. Feelings around their own issues persist no matter what media is in use in the house. Parents should recognize them as their own feelings and work to own them. 

Tip Two: The Baby is an Individual  

All the statistics and information in the world doesn’t change the fact that each baby is an individual, with individual needs.

All babies need one-on-one attention from their caregivers, but some need more than others. Some babies cry more than others, some have colic, some are calmer and quieter than others. And learning occurs differently in each individual.

Have the parents look for clues. If their baby needs more attention than they think he needs, remember he is an individual and cannot be compared to other babies in their life. If their baby has a negative reaction to some type of media, have the parents either reduce its use or don’t use it at all. It might be a signal that he needs more interactive attention from the parent.  If the baby seems confused, frightened or agitated by some imagery or sounds from media, don’t force him to watch it. Cut it out of the home’s media diet. 

Tip Three: Baby, It’s YOU

There is no substitute for the parents. Have parents plan to spend meaningful time with their baby. A baby’s healthy development depends on attentive, personal, touchable, multisensorial, fully embodied experiences.

Newborn Baby’s Brain – Not So High Tech

First, an infant’s growth is intertwined on all levels; physical, mental and emotional growth are all related. In other words, brain development, movement, emotional development, and language are all inter-related and unfold together, at a biologically prescribed pace.   

Second, in the first three years of life, there are multiple critical periods (windows of opportunity) when a baby must be exposed to particular life experiences in order to learn particular skills. If these windows are missed, it’s extremely hard (or impossible) to learn the skill at a later time in life. The windows of opportunity are biologically based on brain development (Zero to Three, 2012). 

For example, vision and language are two skills dependent on critical windows of time. Acquisition of binocular vision and depth perception depends on a normal early experience with vision in the first few weeks of life.  Language skills must be acquired before five years of age, or there is little chance of developing language later in life (Zero to Three, 2012).  

Third, babies are born with immature brains. Experts estimate in order for the human brain to be fully developed at birth, the gestational period should be 18 months.  But human babies come out in nine months in order to compensate for the size of the human female pelvis (Christakis, 2009).  

Many baby experts refer to the first three months of life as the “fourth trimester” (Karp, 2003).  In the fourth trimester, a baby is still very fetus-like.  At at the beginning of life, a baby’s brain is only a quarter of its adult size and will grow about 20% in just the first three months of life. Her brain structures are in place, but are waiting to grow, based on her experiences. (Stamm, 2007). 

Think of the huge differences between a four day old baby and a four month old baby. That four month old child is cooing and smiling right at their parents, enticing them to connect! That newborn is depending on the parents to connect with her to help her grow (Marvin & Britner, 2008).      

The time between birth and two years old is naturally and biologically a period of extraordinary growth. An infant’s brain naturally grows based on genetics and interactive experience (Zero to Three, 2012; AAP, 2011; Stamm, 2007) 

The Infant Brain – How Babies Learn  

Babies Learn by Social Interaction:  Popular hype says any type of stimulation helps the infant brain grow and learn. But the consensus of child development specialists everywhere is  normal infant development depends on normal social stimulation  involving all the senses (touch, sound, sight, smell) (Vygotsky, 1978; as cited in Fenstermacher et al, 2010).   

What is normal social stimulation with all the senses?

It is responsive care by the parents (caregivers) using all the senses, including skin to skin contact, movement (swaying, walking, gentle dancing), holding, feeding, cuddling, talking,  loving direct eye contact, smiles, gentle play, comforting, and mature acceptance and modulation of your baby’s changing feeling states (angry, happy, sad) (Cozolino, 2006; Wallin, 2007). 

Emotional Attachment Style is Learned: A baby’s emotional template is encoded neurologically based on her earliest experiences with her parents and other caregivers. The biological attachment sequence enacts no matter what type of care a baby receives.

A good quality, secure attachment is created by good quality and consistent interactions between baby and parents. The human brain is plastic, so the attachment template is continuously updated and developed throughout life, but it is much easier on a person to begin life with healthy connectivity patterns, than to correct them as they go along (Wallin, 2007).        

Neglect & Abuse Affect Brain Growth: Research shows children growing up in neglectful and abusive homes, who are rarely spoken to, who do not have the opportunity to explore, may fail to develop the neuronal pathways necessary to learning (Zero to Three, 2012).

No Media vs Hey, It’s Educational!   

Parents of the under two set are understandably concerned by the conflicting messages out there about screen time.

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 2011) strongly discourages any media consumption by children younger than two.

The AAP’s policy statement is based on research findings that media time tends to elbow out time spent in unstructured, creative play time and interactive activities with a parent or caregiver.  High quality, multi-sensorial interactions with a consistent caregiver are essential for healthy child development.

Yet, media is an integral part of our culture. On the average, 100% of children under two watch 1 – 2 hours of media every day and 14% watch over 2 hours a day (AAP, 2011).  40% of all children younger than two years live in households where the TV is on all day long as background noise (Courage & Setcliff, 2009). 

So what’s a parent to believe?

Does media consumption hurt babies?

Many parents say they are comfortable with allowing their under 12 month babies to watch educational media. There are a lot of educational firms pushing DVDs for the under 12 month old set, claiming learning enhancement and improvement for school readiness.

Are their claims substantiated by research?

The Research

What follows are some key points from the research about media consumption, learning and attentional effects on the developing brain.

Media, the Developing Brain and Attentional Difficulties

In 2004, Dimitri Christakis, MD, MPH of the University of Washington, reviewed data from an existing study. He found an association between children under three who watch on average more than two hours a day of television and attentional difficulties. In 2007, further studies by Christakis and his colleague, Fred Zimmerman, found the attentional difficulties were more precisely linked to program content. That is, cartoons and fast paced media seem to be linked to attentional difficulties, but not educational and appropriately paced programs. Christakis theorizes that over-stimulation of the developing brain with flashing and changing sights and sounds might be harmful to the developing brain (Christakis and Zimmerman, 2007; Christakis, 2009; Zimmerman et al, 2009).

On the other hand, there are researchers such as Tara Stevens and Miriam Muslow (2006) who feel the evidence linking media usage and attentional difficulties is highly correlational and Christakis and Zimmerman did not properly account for other factors in their information. Clearly, there is a need for the National Institute of Health to fund a large scale study to see if and how the digital native brain is affected by media saturation.   

How Babies Learn from the Screen 

Video Deficit Effect: Research about screen learning versus live learning indicates infants learn less from video than from live interactions; this is called the “video deficit effect.” The video deficit effect persists to about three years of age (Barr, Muentener, & Garcia, 2007; Zack et al, 2009).

The video deficit effect is mitigated by repetitive viewings, media content design and the context in which the media is used (Barr, 2010).

Repetition: So, babies under 12 months will retain behavior after seeing it performed once by a live model. But it takes repeated viewings for a baby to learn the same behavior from a screen.   

Content design: Retention of information is also enhanced in the under 12 month set by story content. If the story lines are simple, in sequence, and uninterrupted by multiple story lines or commercials, retention is enhanced. (think Teletubbies).

Context: In addition, if the media is in the context of a family situation, that is, if there is an appropriate adult moderator present, to discuss, distract and limit screen use, retention is enhanced and deleterious effects are reduced (Christakis, 2009).

Individual learning differences: In addition, there are differences in how and how fast individual babies learn. In general, at about the age of 12 months, a child becomes capable of seeing something on a screen and then performing it himself. But there are individual variations, and these variations persist into toddlerhood (Barr, 2007).     

But, as discussed above, child development specialists agree infants primarily learn via social-interactional-sensorial methods.

Educational Claims

Let’s take a look at the claims made by current educational DVDs targeted at infants.

In 2010, Susan Fenstermacher and her colleagues conducted an overview of 58 popular DVDs (culled from a total of 218 made between Fall 2007 and Spring 2008) marketed as educational to parents for their infants. A total of 17% of 686 claims made by the producers were that the DVDs provide socio-emotional educational content. However, the researchers found that only 4% of all the scenes were socio-interactional in content and these scenes were not of high quality.

In general, producers of DVDs do not use research-based child development learning principles, despite their claims. Of course this may be changing as these producers begin to use child development experts as content consultants.  

Language Development and Media

Language: Research shows babies learn language from being directly spoken to by their caregivers. Babies don’t learn language from the television or from observing conversations between adults, they need direct attention.

Matthew LaPierre and his colleagues (2012) found that children from eight months to eight years are exposed to over 4 hours of TV a day. This can be reduced by not having a TV in the child’s room.

Studies have shown that having the television on at home all day as background noise causes language delays and reduced interaction between parents and children (Kirkorian et al, 2012; LaPierre, Piotrowski & Linebarger, 2012).

Profoundly, a study of 1000 infants found that babies who watched over 2 hours of DVDs a day had poorer language assessments than babies who did not watch DVDs. Specifically, for each hour of watching a DVD, a baby knew 6 – 8 words less than babies who did not watch DVDs (Christakis & Zimmerman, 2007).

On the other hand, in 2010, Allen and Scofield found that 2 year olds can learn simple words from very simplified content, from a video.  They found the Blues Clues format was good for this.

Again, the research is not yet complete, but still points to the benefits of parental awareness and judicious use of media.   

Reality vs Fantasy in the Young Mind

Remember babies brain structures are not yet developed. The lower brain centers, the emotional centers, with structures such as the amygdala, are fully formed at birth. The amygdala is in charge of emotional designation. But the neo-cortex, the logic center is not fully formed until the early twenties (Cozolino,2006). Thus, the capacity to differentiate between fantasy and reality is limited in babies, toddlers and children. Babies are wired to empathize with the emotions of the people around them and have the capacity to do so. And remember that babies do retain information from repeated viewings.

For an example of how differently children view reality than adults, studies show children believe that many planes hit the World Trade Center, not just two, as the event was shown over and over again on TV.

So keep in mind babies/toddlers and adults have a different understanding about fantasy and reality as applied to what is viewed on the screen and they also can “catch” emotions from the people around them and from the screen. 

Five Tips for Parents: Media & Infants 

So, when it comes to media consumption, think about parenting a young baby with awareness and moderation. Some age appropriate media is ok, and its ok to for parents to take breaks with a TV show, but don’t let it edge out stroller walks, hikes in a baby back pack in the woods, and bonding time. 

Tip One: There is no substitute for the parent.

Studies indicate using media over 2 hours a day steals precious interactional learning time from the baby.  Encourage parents to help their baby grow by being present with her.

Tip Two: Like any parenting decision that needs to be made, make the decision from a place of awareness and in moderation.

Tip Three:   Be aware of how much your TV is on.

Again, research has found that children in the US are exposed to over 4 hours of TV a day. Reduce this time limiting the number of TV’s in the home, and not putting a TV or computer in the child’s bedroom.

Tip Four: Those educational DVDs? Well, research shows they make a lot of claims and the content is not based on research.   

Since some studies have implicated attentional and language deficits in babies who view more than two hours of media per day, limit the amount of media with your infant. A baby’s primitive brain learns socially and with many senses involved: touch, smell, sight, sound. A baby’s early interactions and experiences are encoded in the brain and have lasting effects. Choose media that has child development consultants working on the production.  

Tip Five: Think twice about exposing your young baby/toddler to violent imagery on the screen. Remember repetitive showings increase retention, babies are naturally wired to empathize with emotions and studies show that children have a different perception of reality and fantasy than adults.

Five positive ways for parents to interact with their babies:  Consistently interact with a baby using prolonged eye contact, gentle skin to skin touching and smiling Actively watching appropriate media with a baby is a way for parents to get a needed sitting rest and also enhances learning and mitigates negative effects Baby massage is a wonderful tool for parents. Studies show it reduces anxiety and depression in both parents and babies (Field, Hernandez-Reif, M. and Diego,  2006) Teach her to regulate her emotional states by appropriately soothing her when necessary. She is learning how to accept and tolerate her own emotional states from parents, so remain calm and consistent. Remind parents that they don’t need to be perfect, they just need to be good enough!

 References 

American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Communication and Media (2012). Policy Statement: Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years. May 15, 2012 from  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/5/1040.full.html

Barr, R, Muentener, P, and Garcia, A. (2007). Age related changes in deferred imitation from television by 6-18-month-olds.  Developmental Science,10(6), 910-922.  

Christakis, D (2009). The effects of infant media usage: what do we know and what should we learn? Acta Pædiatrica, 98, 8–16.

Christakis, D. and Zimmerman, F. (2007). Associations between content types of early media exposure and subsequent attentional problems. Pediatrics, 120(5), 986 -992. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-3322

Courage, M. and Setliff, (2009). Debating the impact of television and video material on very young children: Attention, learning, and the developing brain. Society for Research in Child Development, 3(1), 72-78.

Cozolino, L. (2006). The neuroscience of human relationships. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 

Fenstermacher, S. K., Barr, R., Brey, E., Pempek, T. A., Ryan, M., Calvert, S. L. and Linebarger, D. (2010). Interactional quality depicted in infant and toddler videos: where are the interactions?. Infant & Child Development, 19(6), 594-612. doi:10.1002/icd.714

Field, T., Hernandez-Reif, M., & Diego, M. (2006). Newborns of depressed mothers who received moderate versus light pressure massage during pregnancy. Infant Behavior and Development, 29, 54-58.

Kirkorian, H. L., Pempek, T. A., Murphy, L. A., Schmidt, M. E., & Anderson, D. R. (2009). The Impact of Background Television on Parent–Child Interaction. Child Development, 80(5), 1350-1359. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01337.x. 

LaPierre, M., Piotrowski, J., and Linebarger, D. (2012).  American children exposed to high amounts of harmful TV. Unpublished paper presented at International Communication Association’s annual conference (Phoenix, AZ, May 24-28, 2012).

Marvin, R.S. & Britner, P.A. (2008). Normative Development: The ontogeny of attachment. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaw (Eds),  Handbook of Attachment, (pp. 269-294). New York: The Guilford Press.

Stamm, J. (2007). Bright from the start. New York: Penguin Books.

Stevens, T. and Mulsow, M. (2006). There is no meaningful relationship between television exposure and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics, 117(3), 665-672. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/3/665.full.html

Wallin,D.J. (2007).  Attachment in psychotherapy. New York: The Guilford Press.

Zack, E., Barr, R., Gerhardstein, P., Dickerson, K., and Meltzoff, A.N. (2009). Infant imitation from television using novel touchscreen technology. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 13–26.

Zero to Three (2012). General brain development. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from  http://main.zerotothree.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ter_key_brainFAQ#bybirthZimmerman, F. J., Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Christakis, D. A., Dongxin, X., Gray, S., & Yapanel, U. (2009). Teaching by Listening: The Importance of Adult-Child Conversations to Language Development. Pediatrics, 124(1), 342-349. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2267 

Kathy Morelli American Academy of Pediatrics, Babies, Childbirth Education, Guest Posts, Infant Attachment, Newborns, Parenting an Infant Childbirth Education, guest posts, iBaby, infants, Kathy Morelli, parenting, technology, Television

Occasional Science & Sensibility contributor Rebecca Dekker of Evidence Based Birth has spent the last month writing a blog article about Group B Strep and it is finally here! In her painstaking but clear review of the evidence on GBS in pregnancy, Rebecca came to the conclusion that universal screening and treatment for GBS is more effective than treating with antibiotics based on risk factors alone. She also found that although “probiotics, chlorhexadine, and garlic have the potential to reduce vaginal and newborn colonization with GBS, we do not have evidence yet to show that these strategies can prevent early GBS infections, since GBS infection usually occurs when GBS gains access to the amniotic fluid and gets into the fetus’s lungs during labor.”

To read Rebecca’s just released article, Group B Strep in Pregnancy: Evidence for Antibiotics and Alternatives in its entirety, click here.

Today, Rebecca joins us on Science & Sensibility to talk about her latest addition to Evidence Based Birth.

Sharon Muza: What inspired you to write this article?

Rebecca Dekker: I received more requests to write about Group B strep than any other topic! Over the past few months, I had weekly, sometimes daily emails and Facebook messages from women—all asking me to provide them with evidence about antibiotics, hibiclens, or garlic for preventing GBS infections. After about the 50th request, I figured I better set aside my other plans and focus on this topic, because it was clearly weighing heavily on many women’s minds! 

SM: What was the most difficult thing about writing this article?

RD: Probably the most difficult thing was sorting through the stacks and stacks of research articles that have been published about Group B strep in pregnancy. This was one of the reasons it took me almost a year of blogging before I decided to dive into group B strep. I knew it would be a monumental task. And it was. But I was fortunate enough to have an expert in GBS who helped point me to the most important or “landmark” studies.

SM: Who was this expert?

RD: I met Dr. Jessica Illuzzi via email earlier this year. She and I had corresponded about a different blog article, and at that time I found her to be incredibly helpful. I knew that in addition to being an OB, Dr. Illuzzi was a research expert in GBS. So I asked her if she would review my article for me. To be honest, I could not have written this article without her guidance. She read my first draft and basically told me that I needed to go back to the drawing board. She encouraged me to dig deeper into the evidence so that I would really understand it. Whenever I had questions about something, she sent me research articles that immediately answered my question. In the end, I knew the article was ready when she said it was a great summary of the state of the science of GBS. 

I was also lucky enough to have 2 other GBS experts give me feedback on the article—a GBS researcher and a microbiologist. And then I have several physicians who faithfully review all of my articles and give great suggestions. I am very grateful to all of them as well!

SM: I know that you usually begin your articles with an exploration of your own biases, in order to tease the bias out of your writing. Did you have any pre-existing biases about GBS? 

RD: To be honest, I actually had no biases up front. I was fortunate to always test negative for GBS myself, and so I never had to struggle with this issue before. I was pretty open-minded to the entire issue. I was open-minded to antibiotics. I was open-minded to hibiclens or other alternatives. I had no personal agenda. I simply wanted to get to the facts. Hopefully this lack of bias will shine through and help people respect the article even more.

 SM: What surprised you most as you wrote this article?

RD: One of the things that surprised me was how people have such different reactions when they read the evidence about GBS. I had several friends preview the article for me. Some of them instantly said, “Oh yeah, that sounds like a really high risk. I’d definitely take the antibiotics to prevent an infection in my newborn.” Others would say, “Really? That’s all? That’s not a very high risk at all. I wouldn’t take antibiotics for that level of risk.” This is a great example of how everyone perceives risk differently. But at least in this article I have been able to put some evidence-based facts out there. Let people interpret the risks as they may. I only ask that they talk with their health care provider before making any decisions!!

 SM: What do you think is the future of GBS evidence?

RD: Ten years from now I am guessing that I could write a very different article. I would like to think that by then we may have a vaccine on the horizon that could prevent both early GBS infections and GBS-related preterm birth. It would also be nice if the rapid test was affordable and widely available by then. I would also LOVE to see some solid research evidence on the use of probiotics for decreasing GBS colonization rates in pregnant women. As far as I know, probiotics for decreasing GBS hasn’t been studied yet in pregnant women, and I think it deserves further inquiry.  

SM:What makes your blog article about GBS different than all the other blog articles out there on this topic?

RD: I purposefully didn’t look at any of the other GBS blog articles out there until I finished my article. Yesterday, I read through a variety of blog articles (there are a lot!). Most of them were about 90-95% accurate in their facts. A couple of them had serious errors (in particular, I found one blog article that had inaccurate information about hibiclens). Most didn’t list any references, and I could tell that most of the blog authors had used secondary sources (other blogs or summary articles) instead of looking at the research evidence themselves. This can be fine, but sometimes it’s a bit like playing telephone: You just keep repeating the same facts over and over without checking to see if the evidence has changed or if the summary you are parroting was accurate in the first place. I’d like to think that my blog article is a very accurate assessment of the research evidence on GBS in pregnancy—translated into regular language so that women and their family members can understand the evidence. 

SM: What are you going to write about next?

RD: I don’t know!! What would YOU like to see me write about?

SM: I want to thank you Rebecca, for your contributions to Science & Sensibility and for sharing Evidence Based Birth with the world!  I know that these articles take a huge amount of time and you are very diligent and conscientious about researching the literature and providing only the best analysis possible,  and seeking out experts on the topic to help you really be sure that you are offering the best of the best of information.  I always enjoy reading your blog and find it a great source of information for my doula and CBE students and my birth doula clients as well. I know that I speak for all the readers here on Science & Sensibility when I say, keep on keeping on!  Do please let Rebecca know what you would like her to write about next!   

Sharon Muza ACOG, American Academy of Pediatrics, Babies, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, informed Consent, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research, Newborns, NICU, Push for Your Baby, Research antibiotics, Evidence Based Birth, GBS, group B strep, guest post, informed Consent, newborns, prenatal testing, Rebecca Dekker, research, Sharon Muza, tests in pregnancy

My first reaction to the now-infamous Time magazine cover was to groan out loud. Like many of you, I was horrified by that cover’s mean-spirited tone. If we didn’t get the message from the picture, there was also the antagonistic caption: “Are you mom enough?” It wasn’t until later that I recognized that this cover, and the controversy that followed, actually reflected a positive shift. Many things had changed since I first became aware of this topic more than 20 years ago.

In 1992, I was just finishing my post-doctoral fellowship at the University of New Hampshire and was expecting my second baby.  My first experience had gone not particularly well, so I spent months educating myself about birth, breastfeeding, and postpartum. During this time, I became friends with Dr. Muriel Sugarman. We were both on the board of a local child abuse organization in Massachusetts. Muriel was a child psychiatrist at Harvard’s Massachusetts General Hospital and an amazing ally to the breastfeeding community. She was interested in long-term breastfeeding and had collected some data. (“Long-term” was operationally defined for that study as “six months or longer.”)  We started working on it together, and bit by bit, had some findings to report.

We submitted one of our first articles on weaning ages to [a well-known journal in pediatrics].  Consistent with studies in other parts of the world, when weaning was child led, it tended to occur at ages 2.5 to 3. So far, so good.

But then there were our outliers….the babies who weaned at age 5…and a couple of babies were even older. The reviewers, all women we later learned, went completely nuts. If it had been up to them, we would have been both rejected…and flogged. (Eighteen years later, these are still the worst reviews I’ve ever received.) They hated us, our study, and mostly definitely our “weird” mothers.

I wasn’t sure what to do next, until a colleague handed me an article called, “Darwin takes on mainstream medicine.” It described how extended breastfeeding, babywearing, and cosleeping  conferred a survival advantage for moms and babies, and was presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meetings. That was radical stuff in the mid-1990s. I sacked our introduction and rewrote it using this framework.

The next question was where to send the revised manuscript. I called a pediatric researcher I knew in Philadelphia. He said, “Oh, I never send articles to [well-known pediatric journal]. They’re mean!” That had certainly been my experience. He recommended Clinical Pediatrics, where we got a much more positive reception. The article came out. We were happy. End of story….or so we thought.

In 1997, AAP Statement on Breastfeeding was released. Controversy swirled around that statement for months about one bit in particular: that women breastfeed for at least 12 months and “as long thereafter as is mutually desired.” I was going about my business, blithely unaware that Muriel and I were smack in the middle of the controversy. What reference did the AAP cite to support “as long thereafter as is mutually desired”? You’ve got it: Sugarman and Kendall-Tackett (1995)!

That paper taught me a lot. Ten years later, when I applied for APA Fellow, I identified it as one of the most important in my career. I learned firsthand about the intense negative stigma surrounding extended breastfeeding. I was equally amazed to discover a quiet underground of women who were defying cultural norms and nursing their older babies right under the radar of family, friends, and healthcare providers. Avery described this phenomenon as “closet nursing,” and noted that extended breastfeeding had a lot in common with revealing sexual orientation. Brave souls who chose to be up front faced marginalization—or worse.

Through much of the decade that followed publication of our article, Muriel and I, along with Liz Baldwin and Kathy Dettwyler, frequently had to write letters to courts and child protection agencies on behalf of mothers who were being investigated for child abuse. Their crime? Extended breastfeeding.

Which brings us up to the present time. Yes, the Time magazine article said mean things. But look at it this way: extended breastfeeding is being discussed in a mainstream publication. In addition, thanks to social media, the “quiet underground” is quiet no more. I’ve been amazed at outpouring of support from both celebrities—and ordinary moms—speaking opening and positively about extended breastfeeding. It was something I couldn’t even imagine in 1995. I think it’s safe to say that extended breastfeeding is officially out of the closet.

In closing, I’d like to suggest that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Drs. Ruth Lawrence and Larry Gartner, and the other brave members of the 1997 AAP Committee on Breastfeeding. Their statement did much to move extended breastfeeding out of the margins and into the public square (and Muriel and I were happy to have a small part in that). We still have a ways to go. But let’s take a moment and savor this small victory.

And to the members of the 1997 AAP Committee, I say this: We, the quiet underground, salute you!

The two articles published from that data set are:

Kendall-Tackett, K.A., & Sugarman, M. (1995). The social consequences of long-term breastfeeding.  Journal of Human Lactation, 11, 179-183.

Sugarman, M., & Kendall-Tackett, K.A. (1995). Weaning ages in a sample of American women who practice extended nursing. Clinical Pediatrics, 34(12), 642-647.

 About Kathleen Kendall-Tackett

Kathleen Kendall-Tackett, Ph.D., IBCLC, FAPA is a health psychologist and board-certified lactation consultant. Dr. Kendall-Tackett is Owner and Editor-in-Chief of Praeclarus Press, a new small press specializing in women’s health. She is a research associate at the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire and a clinical associate professor of pediatrics at Texas Tech University School of Medicine in Amarillo, Texas. She is Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Clinical Lactation, a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, and is president-elect of the APA Division of Trauma Psychology. www.KathleenKendall-Tackett.com

 

Kathleen Kendall-Tackett American Academy of Pediatrics, Breastfeeding, Guest Posts, Research AAP, American Academy of Pediatrics, breastfeeding, breastfeeding in the news, breastfeeding statistics, extended breastfeeding, Kathleen Kendall-Tackett, stories about breastfeeding, Time Magazine

by Mark Sloan M.D.

Today’s guest post is written by Dr. Mark Sloan, pediatrician and author of Birth Day: A Pediatrician Explores the Science, the History and the Wonder of Childbirth.  Dr. Sloan shares information and current research on delayed cord clamping after birth, in a helpful Q&A style format that consumers and professionals can use to discuss this important topic.

_____________________

Many maternity care providers continue to clamp the umbilical cord immediately after an uncomplicated vaginal birth, even though the significant neonatal benefits of delayed cord clamping (usually defined as 2 to 3 minutes after birth) are now well known.

In some cases this continued practice is due to a misunderstanding of placental physiology in the first few minutes after birth. In others, human nature plays a role: We are often reluctant to change the way we were taught to do things, even in the face of clear evidence that contradicts that teaching.

Though there is no strong scientific support for immediate cord clamping (ICC), entrenched medical habits can be glacially slow in changing. Here are some often-heard objections to delayed cord clamping (DCC), and how an advocate for delayed clamping might respond to them:

1) I have a very busy practice. DCC takes too much time!

Not really, especially when you consider the benefits. Nearly one-third of a baby’s total blood volume resides in the placenta at birth. Half of that blood is transfused into the baby by 1 minute of age. By 3 minutes, more than 90% of the transfusion is complete. (1)

 2) Immediate clamping helps prevent severe postpartum hemorrhage.

There is no convincing evidence to support this view. Several large studies, including a 2009 Cochrane review of 5 trials involving more than 2,200 women, have found no significant difference between ICC and DCC in terms of postpartum hemorrhage or severe postpartum hemorrhage. (2-6, 10)

 3) A healthy, term baby doesn’t get much benefit from delayed clamping.

Though this is a commonly held belief, it’s definitely untrue.

Whether a fetus is premature or full term, approximately one-third of its total blood volume resides in the placenta. This is equal to the volume of blood that will be needed to fully perfuse the fetal lungs, liver, and kidneys at birth.

In addition to the benefits that come with adequate iron stores (see below), babies whose cords are clamped at 2 to 3 minutes—and thus, who have an increased total blood volume compared with their immediately-clamped peers—have a smoother cardiopulmonary transition at birth.

A third benefit: stem cells, which play an essential role in the development of the immune, respiratory, cardiovascular, and central nervous systems, among many other functions. The concentration of stem cells in fetal blood is higher than at any other time of life. ICC leaves nearly one-third of these critical cells in the placenta. (1,3,4,6-10)

 4) Okay, so delayed clamping means a baby gets more blood and more iron. But iron deficiency isn’t really a problem in first-world countries, right?

Wrong. At least 10% of the general U.S. toddler population (1-3 years of age) is iron deficient, with the prevalence rising well above 20% in selected ethnic and socioeconomic populations.

Immediate cord clamping is only one of many factors that contribute to iron deficiency in early childhood. But babies who start out life low on iron have a very difficult time catching up. Delayed cord clamping provides a baby with as much as a 4- to 6-month supply of iron. (1,3,6-10)

 5) Doesn’t iron deficiency just make kids tired?

Iron deficiency does much more damage than that. Early infancy is a time of rapid brain growth and development, and iron is essential to that process. Studies of infants with iron deficiency have found specific deficits in cognitive processing (including attention and memory) which may lead to permanently decreased intellectual functioning. Making matters even worse, children with severe iron deficiency often exhibit “emotional dulling”—difficulty engaging with caretakers and their environment—which can lead to long-lasting social-emotional deficits. For many reasons, early infancy is a particularly bad time to be low on iron. (1,11)

 6) Don’t babies get plenty of iron from breast milk? 

Unfortunately, no. While breast milk contains a remarkable array of healthful components, a high concentration of iron isn’t one of them. This most likely has to do with maternal recovery from childbirth. A recuperating mother has her own urgent iron needs; replacing the blood typically lost in childbirth takes a lot of it. Nature intends babies to get most of the iron they’ll need for their early development from the placental blood reservoir, rather than from mother, and so comparatively little iron goes into breast milk.  (3,7)

 7) But the baby can lose significant blood volume back into the placenta (aka “backflow bleeding”) if clamping is delayed.

This is extremely unlikely in an uncomplicated birth. With some brief exceptions (e.g., between uterine contractions, or when a baby bears down during crying), blood flow immediately after birth is primarily one-way, from placenta to baby. Here’s a brief explanation of why this is true:

In a process that begins during labor and accelerates as the newborn begins to cry, the pulmonary blood vessels, which receive very little blood flow during pregnancy, open and fill. This relatively sudden change causes the newborn’s blood pressure to fall below the pressure in the placenta. Placental blood, driven by strong uterine contractions, follows the pressure gradient and flows through the umbilical vein into the baby.

As the newborn’s oxygen saturation increases, the umbilical arteries close, which stops nearly all blood flow from baby to placenta. The umbilical vein, which isn’t sensitive to oxygen, remains open somewhat longer, allowing a final bit of blood to flow from placenta to baby before it, too, closes.

The lack of significant “backflow bleeding” is confirmed by the fact that DCC results in ~ 30% greater neonatal blood volume than does ICC.  (1,12)

8) DCC can lead to dangerously high levels of neonatal jaundice.

Since bilirubin, the source of neonatal jaundice, originates in red blood cells, it seems logical that the increased blood volume associated with delayed clamping could lead to severe hyperbilirubinemia.

Yet while some studies have demonstrated mildly increased bilirubin levels in DCC babies in the first few days postpartum, most have found no significant difference between DCC and ICC.

This seeming paradox—relatively stable bilirubin levels in the face of substantially increased blood volume—may have to do with increased blood flow to the neonatal liver that comes with the higher total blood volume associated with DCC. Yes, more blood means more bilirubin, which in turn could mean more jaundice, but better blood flow allows the liver to process bilirubin more efficiently.  (3,4,6,7,9,10)

 9) Delayed clamping can lead to neonatal hyperviscocity—“thick blood” that can cause kidney damage and strokes.

DCC can lead to a somewhat higher neonatal hematocrit than ICC, which isn’t surprising given the additional blood volume. Yet, despite fears of thicker blood “sludging” in organs like the brain and kidneys, no studies have demonstrated this to be the case from DCC alone. (4,6,9,10)

 10) You can’t have both the benefits of DCC and immediate skin-to-skin contact. If you place a newborn on his mother’s abdomen (i.e., above the level of the placenta), gravity will reduce the flow of blood from placenta to baby.

Gravity does matter, but mainly in terms of the speed of the placental transfusion. A baby held below the level of the placenta will receive a full transfusion in about 3 minutes; one held above the placenta (e.g., a baby in immediate skin-to-skin contact) will also receive a full transfusion—it just takes a little longer (about 5 minutes). (1,13)

 11) But what if the baby needs resuscitation? Isn’t it best to hand her over to the pediatrician immediately?

One of the first things a truly sick baby in the NICU is going to receive is fluid support—often as a 20 to 40 ml/kg bolus of normal saline or blood. Yet that is exactly what’s left behind in the placenta with ICC—about 30 ml/kg of whole blood. There is considerable evidence that sick babies, both term and preterm, have better outcomes with DCC. It’s better to let nature do its own transfusing. (14-16)

Summary: 

Delayed cord clamping promotes a healthy neonatal cardiopulmonary transition, prevents iron deficiency at a critical time in brain development, provides the newborn with a rich supply of stem cells, and helps sick neonates achieve better outcomes—all with little apparent risk to mother or baby. The evidence of benefit from DCC is so compelling that the burden of proof must now lie with those who wish to continue the practice of immediate clamping, rather than with those who prefer—as nature intended—to wait.

What do you tell your patients, students and clients about delayed cord clamping?  Do you have a favorite resource or two that you like to share?  What are the community standards around delayed cord clamping in your community?  Are health care providers discussing this with their patients?  Do they have recommendations one way or another that you are hearing?  Please join in the discussion.- SM

References

1) Mercer JS, Erickson-Owens DA. Rethinking placental transfusion and cord clamping issues. Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing. July/September 2012 26:3; 202–217 doi: 10.1097/JPN.0b013e31825d2d9a

2) Andersson O, Hellstrom-Westas L, Andersson D, et al. Effects of delayed compared with early umbilical cord clamping on maternal postpartum hemorrhage and cord blood gas sampling: a randomized trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. Article first published online: 17 Oct, 2012. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01530.x

3) Chaparro, CM. Timing of umbilical cord clamping: effect on iron endowment of the newborn and later iron status. Nutrition Reviews. Volume 69, Issue Supplement s1, pages S30–S36, November 2011.

4) Ceriani Cernadas JM, Carroli G, Pellegrini L, et.al. The Effect of Timing of Cord Clamping on Neonatal Venous Hematocrit Values and Clinical Outcome at Term: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Pediatrics. Vol. 117 No. 4 April 1, 2006 pp. e779 -e786 (2,3 8,9(doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1156). Published online March 27, 2006.

5) WHO. Department of Making Pregnancy Safer. WHO recommendations for the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007.

6) McDonald SJ, Middleton P. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004074. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004074.pub2.

7) Andersson O, Hellstrom-Westas L, Andersson D, Domellof M. Effect of delayed versus early umbilical cord clamping on neonatal outcomes and iron status at 4 months: a randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal. 2011; 343: d7157. Published online 2011 November 15. doi:  10.1136/bmj.d7157

8) Ceriani Cernadas JM, Carroli G, Pellegrini L, et.al. The effect of early and delayed umbilical cord clamping on ferritin levels in term infants at six months of life: a randomized, control trial. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2010; 108:201-208.

9) Hutton EK, Hassan ES. Late vs early clamping of the umbilical cord in full-term neonates: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. JAMA. 2007 Mar 21;297(11):1241-52.

10) McDonald SJ, Middleton P. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004074. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004074.pub2.

11) Carter RC, Jacobson JL, Burden MJ, et al. Iron deficiency anemia and cognitive function in infancy. Pediatrics. 2010; 126:2 pp e427-e434 (doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-2097).

12) Mercer JS, Skovgaard R. Neonatal Transitional Physiology: A New Paradigm. J Perinat Neonat Nursing 2002; 15(4) 56-75

13) Yao AC, Lind J. Effect of gravity on placental transfusion. Lancet. 1969; 2:505-508.

14) Mercer JS, Vohr BR, Erickson-Owens DA, et al. Seven-month developmental outcomes of very low-birth-weight infants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of delayed versus immediate cord clamping. J Perinatol. 2010; 30:11-16.

15) Kinmond S, Aitchison TC, Holland BM, et al. Umbilical cord clamping and preterm infants: a randomized trial. British Medical Journal. 1993; 306:172-175.

16) Rabe H, Wacker, A, Hulskamp G, et al. A randomized controlled trial of delayed cord-clamping in very low-birth-weight preterm infants.  Eur J Pediatr. 2000; 159:775-777.

About Mark Sloan, M.D.

Mark Sloan has been a pediatrician and a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics for more than 25 years. Since 1982, he has practiced with the Permanente Medical Group in Sacramento and Santa Rosa, California, where he was Chief of Pediatrics from 1997 to 2002. He is an Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Community and Family Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Sloan’s first book, Birth Day: A Pediatrician Explores the Science, the History and the Wonder of Childbirth was published in 2009 by Ballantine Books. His writing has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Examiner, and Notre Dame Magazine, among other publications.  Dr. Sloan can be reached through his blog.

 

Sharon Muza American Academy of Pediatrics, Delayed Cord Clamping, Do No Harm, Evidence Based Medicine, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, informed Consent, Medical Interventions, Newborns, Research, Third Stage, Uncategorized guest post, informed Consent, leaving the umbilical cord patent in third stage, Mark Sloan, newborn immune system, newborn iron stores, newborns, placenta, risks of early clamping and cutting umbilical cord, umbilical cord clamping, why is placental blood important?