24h-payday

Archive

Archive for the ‘Evidence Based Medicine’ Category

Book Review: The Science of Mom: A Research-Based Guide to Your Baby’s First Year

September 3rd, 2015 by avatar

By Anne M. Estes, PhD

Today on Science & Sensibility, Anne M. Estes, PhD reviews a new book – The Science of Mom: A Research-Based Guide to Your Baby’s First Year.  Lamaze International and Science & Sensibility are all about providing families and professionals with evidence based information that can help inform decision making.  Seems like this book might fit in nicely with the philosophy that Lamaze has held for decades.  Regular contributor Anne M. Estes, PhD shares her review on this new book and lets us know if it might be something to add to our resource list for new parents.  See the end of the review to learn how you can enter to be chosen for a free copy of this book courtesy of the author,  Alice Callahan. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility. 

Science of Mom Cover HiDefMitchell Kapor once said, “Getting information off the Internet is like drinking from a fire hydrant.” New parents and child care professionals are certainly easily drenched by all the information that can be acquired on the internet from a variety of sources. As newly minted scientist-mom seven years ago, I was frustrated at the number of opinion and experienced-based baby books that lacked scientific support. The Science of Mom: A Research-Based Guide to Your Baby’s First Year, now fills that gap. Alice Callahan, a PhD in nutritional biology and mom of two, systematically examines common questions and concerns about infant care from a scientific perspective. In each chapter, she discusses the historical practice of the question, recommendations of different organizations, the current research, and the risks and benefits of a practice. Dr. Callahan does an excellent job presenting the strengths and limitations of particular studies and the logic behind different recommendations. Although The Science of Mom is science-focused, it is well-written and easy to read. The style of the book is personal and conversational. Personal experiences are intermingled with the science to illustrate her points well. A list of both the references used for each chapter and recommended books and websites are also given to help parents identify credible resources instead of getting lost in the fog of Internet “experts”.

Potential readers

For childbirth professionals and parents or parents-to-be interested in evidence-based practices for birth and an infant’s first year, The Science of Mom is a new and invaluable resource. Questions covered include: When is the right time to cut the umbilical cord? Which newborn treatments are necessary? How do newborns experience and explore their world? What are the differences between breastmilk and formula feeding? Where and how can babies sleep safely? What is the evidence for vaccinations? When and what kinds of solid food are best for babies?

Importance of evidence based decisions

Perhaps it’s also my bias as a scientist, but I greatly enjoyed reading such an insightful description of the process of science, the importance of scientific consensus, differences in quality across studies, and how scientific data can assist families in making informed decisions. Though readers of an evidence based blog like Science and Sensibility may already understand these points, the introduction could be helpful when introducing the rationale behind evidence based practices during child birth classes. It also serves as a guide for anyone who wants to research their own questions in the scientific literature.

I was particularly surprised to read about two instances where changes to medical practices in the early to mid 1900s had occurred without any evidence based support. One example was timing of cutting the umbilical cord. The author speculates that perhaps due to efficiency or convenience, the umbilical cord began to be cut before all the blood was pumped into the newborn. This practice is now being reconsidered due to the increased iron stores in the first 6 months of life of infants when cord clamping is delayed. Such an example certainly reinforces the importance of having evidence of benefit before new procedures are introduced or changes are made in traditional birth procedures.

Filling a gap in the bookshelf

In science and medicine there are no borders and no “right” answers. The Science of Mom is the same. Throughout the book, the author explores how a variety of countries and cultures deal with issues from giving Vitamin K to newborns (oral vs injected) to sleep practices (bed/room sharing vs separate sleeping arrangements). Different personal health conditions and prevalence of disease differ across the globe, making the need for some newborn treatments, such as eye prophylaxis, less clear. Dr. Callahan provides the data and information for people to make informed choices for their own family’s practices and situations. I found the honest, open, and nonjudgmental tone throughout the book refreshing.

Callahan author photo

Author Alice Callahan and her newborn © Alice Callahan

What a scientist-mom adds to the conversation

Each profession trains people to strengthen different skill sets. Training in the life sciences, especially at the PhD level, encourages a person to gather resources, sort through different quality data, synthesize data, and reach a conclusion based on that data for a given situation. Add to that training first-hand experience with raising two kids – knowledge of what it’s like to be in the parenting trenches, experience the “mommy wars”, and feel the exhaustion and yet love and concern of being a parent – and you’ve got a winning combination. The author is not a medical professional and most likely has only attended the births of her own two kids. However, in Science of Mom, Alice Callahan, PhD combines the critical eye of a scientist with the heart of a mother to create a helpful resource for all people interested in evidence based infant care and parenting.

What is missing?

What The Science of Mom does not do in general is to give you prescriptives for answering many of the parenting questions she poses. Data are still being collected and debated for many birth and parenting questions. There simply may not be one “right” way. In these cases, the scientific data are presented, the pros and cons of the different perspectives are addressed, then Dr. Callahan recommends following your baby’s lead and doing what feels best for your own family. After all, parenting is an art as well as a science.

In situations where scientists have reached a consensus, such as with the benefits of vaccines or back sleeping for infants, the author provides insight into how and why that consensus was reached by the scientific community. In such cases, Dr. Callahan provides additional information such as the role of each ingredient in the vitamin K shot in order to provide additional comfort to worried parents.

The Science of Mom is an excellent new addition to the bookshelves of any birth professional or parent who is interested in evidence-based parenting practices. Although the copy of The Science of Mom that I reviewed was complementary, I have given copies to several scientist-mom friends with newborns who also enjoy the nonjudgmental and objective tone of the book. For those wanting to read more of Dr. Callahan’s excellent commentary on the science of parenting, you can find her writing at the blog, The Science of Mom.

Enter to win your own copy of The Science of Mom

Have you had a chance to read this book?  What did you think of it?  Does this sound like a book that you would like to read?  Would you consider adding it to your resource list?  Share your thoughts about the book, how necessary or needed a book such as this might be, or other favorite resources for families to get evidence based information in understandable and easy to digest formats in the comments section below and include your email address.  All comments will be entered in a drawing for your own copy of the book.  The winner will be announced next month when Anne Estes interviews Dr. Callahan about her book. – SM

About Anne Estes

AnneMEstes_headshot 2015Anne M. Estes, PhD is a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Genome Sciences in Baltimore, MD. She is interested in how microbes and their host organisms work together throughout host development. Anne blogs about the importance of microbes, especially during pregnancy, birth, first foods, and early childhood at Mostly Microbes.

Babies, Book Reviews, Breastfeeding, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, New Research, Newborns, Parenting an Infant , , , , , , , ,

Lamaze International Has The Up-to-Date Resources You Need! Are You Connected?

July 21st, 2015 by avatar

lamaze connectedLamaze International offers a large variety of useful material for Lamaze Certified Childbirth Educators and others to use to increase professional knowledge and help you when working with and sharing information with expectant and new families.  There are YouTube videos, infographics, a smartphone app, professional and consumer blogs, a Pinterest account, weekly newsletters for families, bi-weekly newsletters for Lamaze members, Facebook pages, a Twitter account, Instagram photos, live and recorded webinars and more all available to help you better serve the families that you work with. No matter what type of resource material you choose to access, you can be sure that it is evidence based, current and presented in a professional manner.  Here is a summary of many of these resources in one place so that you can use this post as a reference for easy access to useful information whenever you want.

Blogs

Science & Sensibility blog for birth professionals – if you are reading this,  of course you have already found this blog.  Published twice a week, you can get all the news, analyses of recently published studies, teaching ideas and more.  You can subscribe to this blog to be sure never to miss a post.

Giving Birth with Confidence – Lamaze International’s consumer blog written by Cara Terreri, CD(DONA), LCCE.  Follow along with families as they move through their pregnancies, get up to date information on pregnancy, birth and postpartum information – all delivered in a consumer friendly, easy to read format.

Videos

Lamaze International YouTube channel – a variety of videos, including “From the President’s Desk,” where Lamaze President, Dr. Robin Elise Weiss shares information on a variety of current issues, short and informative videos on many of our infographics, Six Healthy Birth Practices, and many more professional and consumer friendly videos that promotes safe and healthy births.  You can subscribe to this YouTube channel to receive updates when new videos are added.

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

  • @LamazeOnline – educators and parents can follow along on lots of updates and a great interactive monthly Twitter chat.
  • @LamazeAdvocates – connects birth pros with peers, professional development & resources to support expectant parents on their journey to a natural, safe & healthy birth, as well as participate in a monthly Twitter chat on a variety of topics.

Pregnancy & Parenting Smartphone App

A great tool for families to use through pregnancy, labor/birth and parenting.  Comprehensive, full of great evidence based information and simply very useful.  Check out the Pregnancy & Parenting app page on the Lamaze International website to see all the useful features, and find resources to help you introduce the app to the families you work with.

Infographics

Evidenced based information in an easy to read (and easy to share), visually appealing infographic format.  Topics include:

  • VBACs (new!)
  • Cesareans
  • Labor Support
  • Healthy Birth Practices
  • Electronic Fetal Monitoring
  • Epidurals
  • Separating Mom and Baby
  • Restricted Food & Drink
  • Restricted Movement
  • Avoiding the First Cesarean
  • Inductions

Find them all here, in both web-based and jpeg formats suitable for printing at your convenience. Don’t forget about the accompanying videos that are based on the infographics.

Email Newsletters

Your Pregnancy Week By Week – a weekly evidence based newsletter designed for parents that provides them with helpful information, tips and resources, delivered right to their inboxes weekly, based on their due date.

Inside Lamaze – a vital resource for continuing education available to Lamaze Members. The latest news, research, and information on upcoming events right in your inbox two times a month. Join Lamaze now to receive this valuable bi-weekly newsletter.

Webinars

Professional webinars for birth professionals with contact hours that are accepted by many maternal and infant health organizations, including nursing associations. Many of the webinars are free and only incur a small cost for contact hours.

Instagram – a place to find all the Lamaze pregnancy, birth and postpartum news that is fit for a picture!

Lamaze has you covered with great resources that keep you informed, up-to-date and connected on a variety of platforms and in diverse formats.  Stay connected with Lamaze International and have a plethora of useful information always at your fingertips and ready to share with expectant families.  How do you stay connected with Lamaze?  What’s your favorite Lamaze resource? Let us know in the comments section below.

Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Lamaze International, Lamaze News, New Research, Research, Webinars , , , , , ,

Elective Induction at 40 Weeks? “Decision-Based Evidence Making” Strikes Again

July 14th, 2015 by avatar

Today on Science & Sensibility, contributor Henci Goer takes a look at a systematic review released in spring that examined the impact of elective inductions on the cesarean rate.  Sound analysis or a house of cards?  Looking closer at the studies reviewed provides insight into how the conclusions reached by the investigators might need to be examined more closely.  Henci does that in this review.  Have you read this new systematic review?  Did you come to the same conclusions?  I invite you to share your thoughts in our comments section below. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility.

flickr photo by catharticflux http://flickr.com/photos/catharticflux/2710057340  CC licensed.

flickr photo by catharticflux http://flickr.com/photos/catharticflux/2710057340 CC licensed.

Yet another systematic review has surfaced “Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials”  in which reviewers claim that electively inducing healthy women, this time at 40, not 41 weeks, offers benefits and doesn’t increase the cesarean surgery rate (Saccone 2015).

Let’s take a closer look.

Reviewers included five trials: three of them conducted in the 1970s (Cole 1975; Martin 1978; Tylleskar 1979), the fourth published in 2005 (Nielsen 2005), and the fifth in 2014 (Miller 2014). Already we have a problem. Induction management in the 1970s is sufficiently different from management today that results are unlikely to apply to contemporary care, but let’s get down to specifics. Two of the 1970s trials were deemed inadequate for inclusion in the Cochrane review of elective induction (Gulmezoglu 2012), and Miller 2014 is published only as an abstract. Quality systematic reviews exclude abstracts because they don’t provide enough information to evaluate the study. For these reasons, these three trials should be taken off the table..

That leaves us with the other two. Nielsen 2005 states in the title “Comparison of elective induction of labor with favorable Bishop scores versus expectant management: a randomized clinical trial” that it is confined to women with favorable Bishop scores. Anyone familiar with elective induction research should know that inducing when the cervix is ready to go won’t increase the cesarean rate compared with spontaneous onset, but inducing with an unripe cervix is a different story even when using cervical ripening agents (Dunne 2009; Jonsson 2013; Le Ray 2007; Macer 1992; Prysak 1998; Thorsell 2011; Vahratian 2005). As you move the induction date earlier and earlier, more and more women will have an unfavorable cervix, so including a trial limited to women with a ripe one will tilt the playing field in favor of induction. Furthermore, half the participants were multiparous women (113/226). Women with prior vaginal births will go on having vaginal births pretty much no matter what you do to them, which raises another point: inducing earlier means a higher percentage of the inductees will be first-time mothers because first time mothers tend to run longer pregnancies (Mittendorf 1990). Nulliparous women are much more vulnerable to anything that pushes them in the direction of a cesarean. That’s not all: The authors tell us that their hospital has a 7% cesarean rate for dystocia in women at term. If a hospital has a cesarean rate much higher than that—and many do—then results can’t be generalized to it, although, frankly, if the doctors are performing cesareans left and right, induction or spontaneous onset may not make much difference. In short, Nielsen (2005) doesn’t make a compelling argument for 40-week elective induction.

flickr photo by Selbe <3 http://flickr.com/photos/stacylynn/11944718954 shared under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-ND) license

flickr photo by Selbe < http://flickr.com/photos/stacylynn/11944718954 shared under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-ND) license

This brings us to the last trial, Cole (1975). Investigators allocated healthy women either to induction at 40 weeks (111 women) or 41 weeks (117 women). As with Nielsen, half the women had prior vaginal births. Despite being healthy, 22 women were induced for “obstetric complications” (undefined) in the 41-week induction group before reaching 41 weeks. If their doctors induced labor because they had concerns, then this would likely put the women at heightened risk for cesarean. Another 32 women were induced for exceeding 41 weeks. This means that overall, nearly half (46%) of the comparison group didn’t begin labor spontaneously, which would mask any association between induction and cesarean. Leaving the induction vs. spontaneous onset issue aside, the U.S. cesarean rate in the early 1970s was around 5%, which means it was a rare woman who would have one regardless of circumstances. Again, not exactly a strong case for inducing at 40 weeks.

What about the benefits? The best reviewers can come up with are a clinically meaningless reduction in mean blood loss (-58 ml); a lower rate of meconium-stained amniotic fluid (4% vs. 14%), not, mind you, a reduction in meconium aspiration, and therefore clinically meaningless as well; and an equally meaningless reduction in mean birth weight of -136 g (5 oz). If they had found something more impressive, surely they would have reported it.

Really? This merited a pre-publication media blast? Because it amounts to a textbook example of “garbage in, garbage out.” I can see only three possibilities to explain it: either 1) the authors and peer reviewers at the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) don’t know as much as they should about what constitutes a quality systematic review, 2) they are so steeped in medical model thinking—“How early can we get the baby out of that treacherous maternal environment?”—that their judgment is compromised, or 3) we have a “pay no attention to what’s behind the curtain” effort to promote elective induction. I don’t know which is the more troubling, but if it’s the last one, the sad thing is that because it’s got the magic words “systematic review,” “meta-analysis,” and “randomized controlled trials” in the title, it’s likely to succeed.

References

Cole, R. A., Howie, P. W., & Macnaughton, M. C. (1975). Elective induction of labour. A randomised prospective trial. Lancet, 1(7910), 767-770.

Dunne, C., Da Silva, O., Schmidt, G., & Natale, R. (2009). Outcomes of elective labour induction and elective caesarean section in low-risk pregnancies between 37 and 41 weeks’ gestation. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 31(12), 1124-1130.

Gulmezoglu, A. M., Crowther, C. A., Middleton, P., & Heatley, E. (2012). Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 6, CD004945.

Jonsson, M., Cnattingius, S., & Wikstrom, A. K. (2013). Elective induction of labor and the risk of cesarean section in low-risk parous women: a cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 92(2), 198-203. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12043

Le Ray, C., Carayol, M., Breart, G., & Goffinet, F. (2007). Elective induction of labor: failure to follow guidelines and risk of cesarean delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 86(6), 657-665.

Macer, J. A., Macer, C. L., & Chan, L. S. (1992). Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 166(6 Pt 1), 1690-1696; discussion 1696-1697.

Martin, D. H., Thompson, W., Pinkerton, J. H., & Watson, J. D. (1978). A randomized controlled trial of selective planned delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 85(2), 109-113.

Miller, N., Cypher, R., Pates, J., & Nielsen, P. E. (2014). Elective induction of nulliparous labor at 39 weeks of gestation: a randomized clinical trial. Obstet Gynecol,132(Suppl 1):72S.

Mittendorf, R., Williams, M. A., Berkey, C. S., & Cotter, P. F. (1990). The length of uncomplicated human gestation. Obstet Gynecol, 75(6), 929-932.

Nielsen, P. E., Howard, B. C., Hill, C. C., Larson, P. L., Holland, R. H., & Smith, P. N. (2005). Comparison of elective induction of labor with favorable Bishop scores versus expectant management: a randomized clinical trial. J Matern Fetal Neontal Med, 18:59-64.

Prysak, M., & Castronova, F. C. (1998). Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a case-control analysis of safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol, 92(1), 47-52.

Saccone, G., & Berghella, V. (2015). Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

Thorsell, M., Lyrenas, S., Andolf, E., & Kaijser, M. (2011). Induction of labor and the risk for emergency cesarean section in nulliparous and multiparous women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 90(10), 1094-1099. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01213.x

Tylleskar, J., Finnstrom, O., Leijon, I, et al. (1979). Spontaneous labor and elective induction – a prospective randomized study. Effects on mother and fetus. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand, 58:513-518.

Vahratian, A., Zhang, J., Troendle, J. F., Sciscione, A. C., & Hoffman, M. K. (2005). Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol, 105(4), 698-704.out

About Henci Goer

Henci Goer

Henci Goer, award-winning medical writer and internationally known speaker, is the author of The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth and Optimal Care in Childbirth: The Case for a Physiologic Approach She is the winner of the American College of Nurse-Midwives “Best Book of the Year” award. An independent scholar, she is an acknowledged expert on evidence-based maternity care.

 

ACOG, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Do No Harm, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Medical Interventions, New Research, Research , , , , , ,

American Obstetrician Takes Rational Position on Home Birth

June 16th, 2015 by avatar

Neel Shah, Harvard Medical School assistant professor and practicing obstetrician, commenting in the New England Journal of Medicine Perspectives section –  “A NICE Delivery – The Cross-Atlantic Divide over Treatment Intensity in Childbirth“, agrees with new United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines concluding that healthy, low-risk women are better off at home or in a midwife-led unit than in a hospital under the supervision of an obstetrician. Citing a table comparing outcomes in low-risk multiparous women from the Birthplace in England data, Shah writes:

The safety argument against physician-led hospital birth is simple and compelling: obstetricians, who are trained to use scalpels and are surrounded by operating rooms, are much more likely than midwives to pick up those scalpels and use them. For women giving birth, the many interventions that have become commonplace during childbirth are unpleasant and may lead to complications . . . .

He quite reasonably adds the caveat that the guidelines apply to low-risk women only and that even these women may develop labor complications without warning, but then, responsible home birth advocates acknowledge those same two points. That being said, I can’t resist adding a couple of caveats of my own.

© Families Upon ThamesFirst, one reason why women with risk factors plan home birth, women with prior cesareans being a common example, is that doctors and hospitals deny them the possibility of vaginal birth (Declercq 2013). With their only hospital alternative being unwanted and unneeded cesarean surgery, planned home birth becomes their least, worst option. This dilemma puts their choice squarely in the lap of the medical system. Another reason is that some women have been so emotionally traumatized by their treatment during a previous birth that they reject planned hospital birth and refuse intrapartum transfer even when this may be the safer option (Boucher 2009; Symon 2010). Again, the failure and its remedy lie with the system, not the woman.

Second, if the hospital lacks 24/7 obstetric, anesthesia, and pediatric coverage and at least a Level 2 nursery, which many do, then a woman is probably no better off in the hospital in an emergency than she would be at home or at a freestanding birth center. Furthermore, most urgent situations—a baby who doesn’t breathe, excessive bleeding, even umbilical cord prolapse—can be managed or stabilized by a properly trained and equipped home birth attendant. In fact, what would be done in the hospital is no different from what would be done at home: neonatal resuscitation, oxygen, medications to stop bleeding, maternal knee-chest position and manually holding the fetal head off the cord until cesarean.

Finally, with admirable frankness, Shah notes that unlike the U.K., and to the detriment of safety, “[A]ccess to obstetric care that is coordinated among homes, birthing centers, and hospitals is both unreliable and uncommon.” And while he doesn’t cast any blame, once more, the fault lies with the system. (Just as an FYI, a model guideline for transfer of care developed by a workgroup that included all stakeholders is publically available.)

Shah concludes: “The majority of women with straightforward pregnancies may truly be better off in the United Kingdom.” True that, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Dialing back the overuse of medical intervention and cesarean surgery; respecting the woman’s right to give informed consent and refusal; implementing a culture of care that is kind, compassionate, and respects a woman’s dignity; and ensuring that out-of-hospital birth attendants can consult, collaborate, and transfer care appropriately would have two benefits: it would reduce the number of women refusing hospital birth while minimizing the chance of adverse outcomes in those who continue to prefer to birth at home or in a freestanding birth center. Nonetheless, despite the generally positive responses accompanying Shah’s commentary, rather than inspiring a wave of reform, I would lay odds that the more common reaction to Shah’s piece within the medical community will be to shoot the messenger.

References

Boucher, D., Bennett, C., McFarlin, B., & Freeze, R. (2009). Staying home to give birth: why women in the United States choose home birth. J Midwifery Womens Health, 54(2), 119-126.

Declercq, E., Sakala, C., Corry, M. P., Applebaum, S., & Herrlich, Ariel. (2013). Listening to Mothers III. Pregnancy and Birth. New York: Childbirth Connection.

Symon, A., Winter, C., Donnan, P. T., & Kirkham, M. (2010). Examining autonomy’s boundaries: a follow-up review of perinatal mortality cases in UK independent midwifery. Birth, 37(4), 280-287.

About Henci Goer

© Henci Goer

Henci Goer, award-winning medical writer and internationally known speaker, is the author of The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth and Optimal Care in Childbirth: The Case for a Physiologic Approach She is the winner of the American College of Nurse-Midwives “Best Book of the Year” award. An independent scholar, she is an acknowledged expert on evidence-based maternity care.

Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Home Birth, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Midwifery , , , , , ,

Book Review: “A Breastfeeding-Friendly Approach to Postpartum Depression: A Resource Guide for Health Care Providers”

May 28th, 2015 by avatar

By Cynthia Good Mojab, MS, LMHCA, IBCLC, RLC, CATSM

monograph cover_tn_kenKathleen Kendall-Tackett, Ph.D, author, IBCLC, researcher, internationally acclaimed speaker and occasional contributor to our blog, has written a new book – “A Breastfeeding-Friendly Approach to Postpartum Depression: A Resource Guide for Health Care Providers,” that tries to lay to rest the myth that receiving help for a postpartum mood disorder and breastfeeding are not compatible.  I asked Cynthia Good Mojab to share her expert review of the book to commemorate the end of Perinatal Mood Disorders Awareness Month.  Cynthia is the perfect person for this task as she wears the hat of both a lactation consultant and a clinical counselor.  As birth professionals who work with families throughout the childbearing year, we have a sincere responsibility to provide information and screening resources so that families can be evaluated and directed to receive help that continues to support the breastfeeding dyad if breastfeeding is the parent’s desire.  Read Cynthia’s review and consider what you can do to increase awareness of perinatal mood disorders and offer your clients and students the best evidence based information available about how treatment options and breastfeeding are not mutually exclusive. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

Globally, the prevalence of postpartum depression is as high as 82.1% when measured using self-report questionnaires and as high as 26.3% when measured using structured clinical interviews (Norhayati, Nik Hazlina, Asrenee, & Wan Emilin, 2014). These high rates mean that a significant proportion of families navigate breastfeeding in the context of postpartum depression.

As a perinatal mental health care provider and an IBCLC, I am frequently contacted by parents who found me after having been unable to access breastfeeding-compatible mental health care for postpartum depression (Good Mojab, 2014). They report feeling as though they are caught between a rock and a hard place: they’ve been diagnosed with postpartum depression and have been told by their primary care provider and/or their mental health care provider that they must wean in order to treat their depression. Sometimes they are even told that breastfeeding is causing their depression. Not only is that not true, but the relationship between infant feeding and postpartum depression is actually quite complex (Nonacs, 2014). While breastfeeding problems increase the risk of postpartum depression, breastfeeding itself is protective (Kendall-Tacket, n.d.). And research shows that infant-feeding intentions matter: breastfeeding mothers who are unable to accomplish their breastfeeding goals are two-and-a-half times more likely to develop postpartum depression (Borra et al., 2015). These research findings match what I see in my private practice: the partial or complete loss of a parent’s desired experience of breastfeeding can precipitate deep grief and worsen or precede the onset of postpartum depression.

Fortunately, there are many breastfeeding-compatible treatments for postpartum depression which health care providers and mental health care providers can use to effectively treat the vast majority of their clients. Dr. Kathleen Kendall-Tackett’s new book, “A Breastfeeding-Friendly Approach to Postpartum Depression: A Resource Guide for Health Care Providers,” presents an up-to-date overview of the related research in an outline format that is quick and easy to read. She presents a compelling case for ensuring that families coping with breastfeeding problems receive additional lactation support and that breastfeeding parents coping with postpartum depression have access to treatment that is compatible with the continuation of breastfeeding.

In the first chapter, Kendall-Tackett introduces the rationale for screening for, referring for, and treating postpartum depression: postpartum depression is common in new parents and untreated postpartum depression has significant, immediate, and long-term negative consequences for both parent and child. She then presents research showing that breastfeeding does not cause depression (as some health care providers falsely believe); rather, breastfeeding serves to protect the dyad from the deleterious consequences of postpartum depression via its dampening of the stress response and via its facilitation of ongoing engagement between parent and baby. (When we shift our culturally based reference frame in recognition that breastfeeding is the biological norm for humans, we can see that this research also shows that formula feeding increases the risk of deleterious consequences from postpartum depression through increasing the stress response and potentially lessening ongoing engagement between parent and baby.) The substantial evidence base for why the effective treatment of postpartum depression is so critical—briefly introduced in chapter 1—is presented in more detail in chapter 3. Psychological disorders that often co-occur with postpartum depression, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, are then described. Chapter 5 reviews the complex causes of postpartum depression, including inflammation, fatigue and sleep disturbance, pain, traumatic birth experiences, infant characteristics such as illness and prematurity, and maternal characteristics, life history, psychiatric history, and social context.baby breastfeeding

Chapter 6 emphasizes the importance of screening for postpartum depression. Kendall-Tackett wisely advocates that validated screening tools be used (rather than relying merely on casual observation) and that screening occur in a variety of care settings—prenatal, hospital, home, and pediatric office visits. The recommendation for prenatal screening is very important. Depression during pregnancy is common (11% to 23% of pregnant women experience depression), is a risk factor for adverse reproductive outcomes such as preterm delivery, and is among the strongest predictors of postpartum depression (Gaynes, et al., 2005; Yonkers, et al., 2009; Norhayati, Nik Hazlina, Asrenee, & Wan Emilin, 2014). Kendall-Tackett describes three reliable screening tools—two of which (the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale) are in the public domain. This excellent chapter would be improved further with information about how to implement perinatal mental health screening in various settings, including the need to build a breastfeeding-friendly referral network prior to initiating screening and the need to develop or obtain materials (e.g., brochures, handouts, posters, resource lists, referral lists) that provide anticipatory guidance and help parents more easily access information, support, and treatment for postpartum depression (Good Mojab, 2015).

In chapter 7, Kendall-Tackett presents the development of a breastfeeding-friendly treatment plan as being grounded in the facilitation of informed decision making—something perinatal care providers are ethically obligated to do. Informed decision making requires that parents be offered evidence-based information that will allow them to weigh the risks and benefits of a variety of treatment options. This final chapter presents such information in the form of a succinct review of the available research on treatments that have been shown to be effective in treating depression, including: 1) “alternative” treatments (i.e., long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, exercise, S-Adenosyl-L-Methionine, and bright light therapy), 2) psychotherapeutic treatments (i.e., cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal therapy), 3) herbal medications (i.e., St. John’s Wort); and 4) anti-depressant medications. The reader is referred to the Infant Risk Center for up-to-date information about the use of particular anti-depressant medications during breastfeeding. Additionally, Medications and Mothers’ Milk: A Manual of Lactational Pharmacology is listed among the references. The LactMed app, though not mentioned in the book, is another useful resource for facilitating informed decision making regarding the use of drugs and supplements during breastfeeding.

The appendices are helpful for readers who have not yet begun to screen for perinatal depression and are looking for appropriate screening tools. Included are the Postpartum Depression Predictors Inventory—which can be used to identify risk factors for postpartum depression—and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale—which is well-validated as a screening tool for perinatal depression in mothers, in many cultures and languages, and in fathers. (A gender/prenatal/postpartum inclusive version of the EPDS is available here.) Because postpartum depression often includes symptoms of anxiety and/or co-occurs with an anxiety disorder, the appendices would have been improved by including the well-validated Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) Scale, which is also in the public domain.

Scattered throughout the book are links to video clips that provide information on topics such as how breastfeeding protects maternal mental health and how breastfeeding ameliorates the negative effects of sexual assault. Readers with an auditory learning style will especially appreciate this access to online interviews and mini-presentations. Unfortunately, the dark gray links on a light gray background can sometimes be hard to read, leaving the reader to wonder “is that character a capital I, a lowercase L, or a numeric 1?” But, the video resources are worth the trial and error needed to open a couple of the links. Those with access to a smartphone with a QR code reader or barcode scanner can simply scan the code for each video clip to open the links, which greatly simplifies the process.

While the title of the book, “A Breastfeeding-Friendly Approach to Postpartum Depression,” is gender neutral, readers should know that the book is focused on cisgender mothers and uses cisnormative language. Certainly, there is a dearth of research on transgender and gender non-conforming parents which makes it difficult to write an evidence-based book addressing their needs in the context of breastfeeding/chestfeeding and postpartum depression. Nonetheless, we can infer that the high rate of clinical depression (44.1%) among transgender individuals means that transgender parents are at high risk for postpartum depression. And, the fact that transgender individuals experience “gender insensitivity, displays of discomfort, denied services, substandard care, verbal abuse, and forced care” in health care settings (Bockting, et al., 2013) means that transgender parents are also at high risk of being unable to access effective mental health care, much less breastfeeding/chestfeeding-compatible mental health care. Perinatal care providers need to be aware of these higher risks and learn how to bring their services into compliance with the Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender-Nonconforming People (Bockting, et al., 2011). The lactation-friendly treatment options for postpartum depression that are reviewed in the book are likely to also be effective for transgender and gender non-conforming parents who breastfeed, chestfeed, or feed their expressed milk to their babies. The effective treatment of breastfeeding/chestfeeding parents with postpartum depression will also need to include responding to whether and how they are experiencing gender dysphoria during lactation.

Although written for health care providers, “A Breastfeeding-Friendly Approach to Postpartum Depression” will also be useful for childbirth educators, doulas, lay supporters, lactation specialists, and perinatal mental health care providers as they strive to do their part to offer families evidence-based anticipatory guidance about postpartum depression and its treatment options, advocate for more lactation support for families coping with breastfeeding difficulties, screen for postpartum depression, refer to and effectively collaborate with other breastfeeding-friendly perinatal care providers, and provide services that avoid iatrogenically increasing the risk of negative health, developmental, and mental health consequences for parents and babies through the unnecessary undermining of breastfeeding. The more widely Dr. Kendall-Tackett’s powerful little book is read and applied in practice, the more breastfeeding families will have access to breastfeeding-compatible treatment that truly meets their needs in the context of postpartum depression.

References

Bockting, W., Miner, M., Swinburne, R., Hamilton, A., and Coleman, E. (2013). Stigma, mental health, and resilience in an online sample of the US transgender population. Am J Public Health, 103:943–951. Accessed: May 23, 2015. Url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698807/pdf/AJPH.2013.301241.pdf

Borra, C., Iacovou, M., and Sevilla, A. (2015). New evidence on breastfeeding and postpartum depression: The importance of understanding women’s intentions. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 19:897–907. Url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4353856/pdf/10995_2014_Article_1591.pdf

Coleman, E., Bockting, W., Botzer, M., et al. (2011). Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming people, version 7. International Journal of Transgenderism, 13:165–232. Accessed May 23, 2015. Url: http://www.wpath.org/uploaded_files/140/files/IJT%20soc,%20v7.pdf

Gaynes, B., Gavin, N., Meltzer-Brody, S., Lohr, K., Swinson, T., Gartlehner, G., Brody, S., Miller, W., et al. (2005). Perinatal depression: Prevalence, screening accuracy and screening outcomes;Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 119:1–8.

Good Mojab, C. (2014). Mental Health Care for Postpartum Depression During Breastfeeding. Lynnwood, WA: LifeCircle Counseling and Consulting, LLC. Accessed May 23, 2015. Url: http://lifecirclecc.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/MentalHealthCarePPDBfd2014.pdf

Good Mojab, C. (2015). The Basics of Perinatal Screening. Accessed May 23, 2015. Url: http://www.lifecirclecc.com/professionals/perinatal_screening

Hale, T. and Rowe, H. (2014). Medications and Mothers’ Milk: A Manual of Lactational Pharmacology. Amarillo, TX: Hale Publishing.

Kendall-Tackett, K. (n.d). Why Breastfeeding and Omega-3s Help Prevent Depression in Pregnant and Postpartum Women. Accessed May 23, 2015. Url: http://www.uppitysciencechick.com/why_bfand_omega_3s.pdf

Kosenko, K., Rintamaki, L., Raney, S., and Maness, K. (2013). Transgender patient perceptions of stigma in health care contexts. Med Care, 51(9):819-22.

Nonacs, R. (2014). Breastfeeding and Postpartum Depression: Further Insights Into a Complicated Relationship. Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Mental Health. Accessed: May 23, 2015. Url: http://womensmentalhealth.org/posts/breastfeeding-postpartum-depression-insights-complicated-relationship/

Norhayati, M., Nik Hazlina, N., Asrenee, A., & Wan Emilin, W. (2014). Magnitude and risk factors for postpartum symptoms: A literature review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 175C, 34-52.

Yonkers, K. Wisner, K., Stewart, D. Oberlander, T., Dell, D., Stotland, N., Ramin, S., et al. (2009). The management of depression during pregnancy: A report from the American Psychiatric Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 114(3):703–713. Accessed: May 28, 2015. Url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3094693/pdf/nihms293837.pdf 

About Cynthia Good Mojab

cynthia good mojab headshot 2015Cynthia Good Mojab, MS Clinical Psychology, is a Clinical Counselor, International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, author, award-winning researcher, and internationally recognized speaker. She is the Director of LifeCircle Counseling and Consulting, LLC where she specializes in providing perinatal mental health care, including breastfeeding-compatible treatment for postpartum depression. Cynthia is Certified in Acute Traumatic Stress Management and is a member of the American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress and the National Center for Crisis Management. Her areas of focus include perinatal loss, grief, depression, anxiety, and trauma; lactational psychology; cultural competence; and social justice. She has authored, contributed to, and provided editorial review of numerous publications. Cynthia can be reached through her website.

 

Babies, Book Reviews, Breastfeeding, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Maternal Mental Health, New Research, Newborns, Perinatal Mood Disorders, Postpartum Depression, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

cheap oakleys fake oakleys cheap jerseys cheap nfl jerseys wholesale jerseys wholesale nfl jerseys