24h-payday

Archive

Archive for the ‘Evidence Based Medicine’ Category

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 , , , , , , , ,

The Healthy Birth: Dyad or Triad? Exploring Birth and the Microbiome

April 28th, 2015 by avatar

By Anne Estes, PhD, Illustrated by Cara Gibson, PhD

There has been much discussion and burgeoning research on how the mode of birth affects the microbiome of the infant (and later on the adult).  It is becoming clear that how babies are born impacts the type of bacteria that take up residence in and on our bodies. Today, I would like to welcome researcher and writer Anne Estes, PhD, and researcher and illustrator Cara Gibson, PhD to Science & Sensibility.  Anne shares information on the research into a newborn’s (and later on the adult) microbiome and how it can be affected by the location of birth, the type of birth and the interventions that occur during birth.  Learn more about what this new field of research is telling us about the importance of the microbiome. Stay tuned for a future interview by Anne, with some of the research scientists attempting to supplement the microbiome of infants delivered by planned Cesareans. – Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Community Manager

Birth plans often change. Neither my husband nor I anticipated the series of interventions with my first daughter’s birth. In the end, though we had the most important outcome – a healthy mom and baby dyad. How did these interventions influence the health of the third, silent, and invisible member of my daughter’s birth that I hadn’t included in her birth plan – her microbiome?

The helpful and harmful bacteria, viruses, and fungi that live in and on every environment, both living and non-living, are the microbiome of that environment. The bacterial component of the microbiome is best understood to date and will be this post’s focus. An organism’s microbiome influences the development and health of those animals and plants, whereas the microbiome of soil and buildings influence organisms that reside in those non-living environments. Our helpful microbes provide services that range from vitamin synthesis and food degradation to preventing attacks by pathogens. However, in the last few centuries of human-microbe interactions, changes in our birth and medical practices and living conditions may have altered the acquisition of our microbial communities. Our altered microbiomes, especially in the industrialized world, may help explain the increase in allergies, asthma, diabetes, gastrointestinal diseases, and mental disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and autism.

Humans as ecosystems for microbes

To a bacterium, you are a planet made up of several different ecosystems. From the dry, UV-intense “desert” of your skin to the warm, wet, nutrient-rich “lake” of your mouth, specific bacteria live in different regions on a person, just as specific vertebrate animals live in different ecosystems on the Earth (Figure 1, left and center). As ecosystems of the human environment change during development, pregnancy, or with changing diets, which bacterial species remain or how these microbial species function may shift is slowly becoming understood. How do we first acquire these microbes? Previous posts here and other blogs have done excellent reviews of the human microbiome and birth, so my post will serve to provide updates and pose new questions for consideration.

Fig1_MapLadies6

The source of the infant microbiome

The infant microbiome is acquired during birth [1, 2], from first foods [3-5], and the environment [6], and may also be partially colonized in utero [7]. The microbiome of infants born vaginally most closely represents the microbiome of the mother’s vagina and feces [1], and is rich in beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis and Bacteroidetes [8, 9] (Figure 2, left). In contrast, the microbiome of infants born via planned Cesarean is more similar to that of the mother’s skin and hospital environment [1]. The microbiomes of planned Cesarean-born infants are more likely to have hospital-acquired pathogens such as Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and pathogenic Es. coli [1] and lack beneficial Bacteroidetes and Bi. longum subsp. infantis [10] (Figure 2, right). However, when beneficial Bifidobacterium were occasionally present in Cesarean-born infants, pathogenic Es. coli and C. difficile were not found [11] suggesting that one benefit of Bifidobacterium, especially Bi. longum subsp. infantis, may be outcompeting these potential pathogens.

Influence of birth mode on microbiome transmission

Repeatedly, studies in different countries, ethnic groups, ages, and health status have suggested that planned Cesarean-born infants are more likely to have more health issues and a different microbiome, as compared to vaginally born infants [2, 10, 12-14]. These differences in community composition can even be seen in adulthood [15]. A new Canadian study finds that the microbiome of infants born via unplanned Cesarean had increased bacterial richness and diversity, more similar to that of vaginally born infants than planned Cesarean [10]. Unfortunately, this was only a small study where fewer than ten mother-infant pairs were examined. Several variables such as length of time in labor or how far labor progressed, antibiotic use, natural vs. artificial rupture of membranes, and/or other interventions that may influence the microbiome were also not examined [10]. However, it does suggest that the process of labor, perhaps the hormonal or other physiological changes, may influence the microbiome. Additionally, some maternal bacteria may be transmitted when membranes rupture during labor [10]. Are bacteria “eavesdropping” on the chemical changes in the human to prepare themselves for transmission to the baby? Do these maternal hormone changes lead to increased vaginal or gut epithelial sloughing to transmit more or specific bacteria? Certainly, studies with larger sample sizes that can help control for these variables along with experimental studies on model animals are warranted.

Influence of birth place on microbiome transmission

Infants also acquire a proportion of their microbiome from their physical, inanimate surroundings. What proportion of the microbiome and which bacteria are acquired most likely depends on how many and what kinds of bacteria are acquired in utero, through birth method, and first foods. Since Cesarean delivered infants seem to be exposed to a lower density of maternal bacteria than vaginally delivered babies, the former may be more likely to acquire bacteria from their environment. However, this hypothesis has not been examined.

Fig2_MicrobirthVagvC5

 

Just as living organisms are a microbial environment, so are non-living structures such as buildings. Scientists at several universities working together on The Microbiology of the Built Environment Project funded by the Sloan Foundation are comparing the microbes of homes and hospitals. They have found that buildings are quickly colonized by the microbes of the people living in them [16]. Such rapid colonization specific to the individual being housed is even seen in infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) [17, 18] (Figure 3).

Fig3_Locations4

One group is surveying the microbiome of a hospital over time, as it is being built and then occupied. Hospital-acquired infections are an increasing concern for all patients, especially newborns. Infants born by Cesarean have an increased rate of MRSA, C. difficile, and other opportunistic pathogens [1]. However, different hospitals and even wards within a hospital might be expected to have disparate levels of pathogens depending on how prevalent the disease is within the hospital patients and staff. Whether freestanding birth centers, operating rooms dedicated to labor-and-delivery only, and mixed-use operating rooms have dissimilar microbiomes has yet to be investigated. Infants born in private homes would be exposed to the same microbiomes of members of the household.

 

Influence of first foods on microbiome transmission

Fig4_MicrobirthBreastvBottle5First foods are another influence on the infant microbiome. Breastfed infants have two “moms:” their human mother and their Milk-Oriented Microbiota (MOM) (Figure 4, left). The MOM are beneficial, protective bacteria in the infant’s gut that thrive when fed the sugars in breast milk [19]. Although human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) are the third most abundant component of breast milk, the infant cannot digest these sugars. Instead, HMOs are a natural prebiotic or “bacterial food”. Various HMO sugar types and concentrations influence bacterial diversity, keeping strains of Bifidobacterium longum subsp infantis in highest abundance in the first few months of life and preventing pathogens from binding to the gut [20]. HMOs vary between pre-term and full term birth, vaginal deliveries and planned Cesarean births (reviewed in [20]), and even between mothers with different types of “secretor” genes [21]. Does this HMO variability serve to maintain and enhance some of the differences in bacterial communities between individuals? In addition to the MOM, a diversity and abundance of bacteria are found in breast milk. The average breastfed baby is exposed to between 1 and 10 million bacteria daily from their mother’s milk [5]! The breast milk microbiome is a unique assemblage of bacteria, distinct from human skin, gut, oral, vaginal, and other specific body site microbiomes [4]. Like other components of breast milk, the bacterial community changes dramatically between colostrum and mature milk with colostrum being the most diverse with over 1,000 different bacterial types [4]. Although only ten women were followed, it is intriguing that the breast milk microbiome of women delivering via planned Cesarean at birth, one month, and six months post-birth, was more similar to their gut microbiome than the breast milk of mothers who delivered vaginally [4]. Milk of moms undergoing unplanned Cesarean and vaginally delivering mothers were most similar [4]. How the presence of different microbes influences the developing human infant immune system has yet to be determined. Additionally, does the breast milk bacteria colonize the infant gut or are they digested? Could breast milk bacteria change how the MOM infant gut microbiome works as they pass through the gut, as one probiotic does in elderly patients [22]?

Formula-fed babies have a more diverse and rich microbiome than breast-fed babies, with lower numbers of Bifidobacterium and higher abundances of Peptostreptococcaceae, which includes C. difficile [10, 23] (Figure 4, right). Gut bacterial diversity is essential in increasing the ability of adults to digest a wide variety of foods. However, bacterial diversity may be detrimental in the infant stage when the immune system is developing and learning to distinguish between microbes that are friends and those that are foes. Breast milk sugars may mediate the relative abundances of different bacterial species [24]. Through studies like the Milk Bioactives Program at University of California at Davis, more is learned about the interaction between breast milk sugars and specific bacteria that can lead to better probiotic and prebiotic formulas and improve infant health.

Influence of in utero environment on microbiome transmission

Many other factors surrounding birth may influence the infant microbiome. High levels of reported maternal stress and high cortisol concentrations during pregnancy, correlated with lower relative abundances of beneficial Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium sp. and higher abundances of Proteobacteria, such as Enterobacter and Escherichia. Infants of these highly stressed mothers had increased reports of gastrointestinal symptoms and allergic reactions, though these issues were reported by caregivers, not physicians, which may confound the findings [25]. A separate study found infants whose gestation lengths were less than 38 weeks had microbiome communities that were low in Bifidobacterium and took 3 to 6 months to reach a normal Bifidiobacterium-rich community as compared to infants born at 40 or more weeks [9]. Finally, the use of antibiotics during pregnancy [12] may also lead to infant health issues.

Do birth interventions change the microbiome?

The potential “eavesdropping” of bacteria on human hormones during pregnancy and labor led me to wonder how the use of synthetic hormones such as Pitocin, especially during stalled labor, might influence the microbiome and overall infant health. There are so many variables to the birth process that many of these questions could only be answered with extremely detailed data of tens of thousands of mother-infant-microbiome triads over time. The influence of interventions such as epidurals, frequency of cervical checks, episiotomies, vaginal preparation with betadine, enemas, and other procedures used during labor and delivery also have not been extensively examined. In general, any procedure that “sterilizes” or cleans the vaginal and rectal area would most likely decrease the transmission of the mother’s microbial community. Whether cervical checks introduce skin or environmental microbes to the infant should also be considered. Finally, what effect does postponing baby’s first bath until 24 or 48 hours after birth have on microbial colonization? What role does the vernix have in facilitating the colonization of the infant’s microbiome?

From lab bench to birth room

Antibiotics, Cesarean delivery, and other interventions are valuable and life-saving for many women and infants; however, as they have become more commonly used we have seen an increase in many long-term diseases and disorders. Recent microbiome research suggests that we should consider birth as delivering and nurturing a healthy triad – mom, infant, and microbiome. Currently, studies are being conducted to swab Cesarean delivered infants with vaginal secretions immediately after birth. Should fecal microbiome members also be considered? If hormone surges are important for the microbiome transmission during labor and in breast milk, as the unplanned Cesarean data suggest, how could the natural hormone surges of labor be mimicked for planned Cesarean? When antibiotics are needed for mother or infant, how best can we quickly repopulate the disturbance to the native microbiome?

Humans, and all organisms, are planets with diverse ecosystems. In sequencing of the human genome, we learned that diseases rarely correlated to specific human genes. Most likely instead of focusing on only the human or only the microbes, we should be examining the intersection between human genomics and microbiome structure and function to best understand health and disease of human-microbe ecosystems. Both human genomics and microbiome work are in their infancy (pun intended). Researchers examine correlations to develop testable hypotheses that can be examined in non-human animal models. Yet many of the microbes of interest are currently unable to be cultivated for direct testing or probiotic use. At this time, directly translating research findings to the delivery room is difficult, but I hope that this post will stimulate thought and conversations about the silent, invisible, yet important third member of human birth and life.

References

  1. Dominguez-Bello, M. G., E. K. Costello, M. Contreras, M. Magris, G. Hidalgo, N. Fierer, and R. Knight. 2010. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:11971-11975.
  2. Mueller, N. T., E. Bakacs, J. Combellick, Z. Grigoryan, and M. G. Dominguez-Bello. 2015. The infant microbiome development: mom matters. Trends in Molecular Medicine 21:109-117.
  3. Zivkovic, A. M., J. B. German, C. B. Lebrilla, and D. A. Mills. 2011. Human milk glycobiome and its impact on the infant gastrointestinal microbiota. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:4653-4658.
  4. Cabrera-Rubio, R., M. C. Collado, K. Laitinen, S. Salminen, E. Isolauri, and A. Mira. 2012. The human milk microbiome changes over lactation and is shaped by maternal weight and mode of delivery. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 96:544-551.
  5. Fernández, L., S. Langa, V. Martín, A. Maldonado, E. Jiménez, R. Martín, and J. M. Rodríguez. 2013. The human milk microbiota: Origin and potential roles in health and disease. Pharmacological Research 69:1-10.
  6. Thompson, A. L., A. Monteagudo-Mera, M. B. Cadenas, M. L. Lampl, and M. A. Azcarate-Peril. 2015. Milk- and solid-feeding practices and daycare attendance are associated with differences in bacterial diversity, predominant communities, and metabolic and immune function of the infant gut microbiome. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 5.
  7. Prince, A. L., D. M. Chu, M. D. Seferovic, K. M. Antony, J. Ma, and K. M. Aagaard. 2015. The Perinatal Microbiome and Pregnancy: Moving Beyond the Vaginal Microbiome. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine.
  8. Jost, T., C. Lacroix, C. P. Braegger, and C. Chassard. 2012. New Insights in Gut Microbiota Establishment in Healthy Breast Fed Neonates. PLoS ONE 7:e44595.
  9. Dogra, S., O. Sakwinska, S.-E. Soh, C. Ngom-Bru, W. M. Brück, B. Berger, H. Brüssow, Y. S. Lee, F. Yap, Y.-S. Chong, et al. 2015. Dynamics of Infant Gut Microbiota Are Influenced by Delivery Mode and Gestational Duration and Are Associated with Subsequent Adiposity. mBio 6.
  10. Azad, M. B., T. Konya, H. Maughan, D. S. Guttman, C. J. Field, R. S. Chari, M. R. Sears, A. B. Becker, J. A. Scott, and A. L. Kozyrskyj. 2013. Gut microbiota of healthy Canadian infants: profiles by mode of delivery and infant diet at 4 months. Canadian Medical Association Journal 185:385-394.
  11. Musilova, S., V. Rada, E. Vlkova, V. Bunesova, and J. Nevoral. 2015. Colonisation of the gut by bifidobacteria is much more common in vaginal deliveries than Caesarean sections. Acta Paediatrica 104:e184-e186.
  12. Mueller, N. T., R. Whyatt, L. Hoepner, S. Oberfield, M. G. Dominguez-Bello, E. M. Widen, A. Hassoun, F. Perera, and A. Rundle. 2014. Prenatal exposure to antibiotics, cesarean section and risk of childhood obesity. Int J Obes.
  13. Neu, J., and J. Rushing. 2011. Cesarean versus Vaginal Delivery: Long term infant outcomes and the Hygiene Hypothesis. Clinics in perinatology 38:321-331.
  14. van Nimwegen, F. A., J. Penders, E. E. Stobberingh, D. S. Postma, G. H. Koppelman, M. Kerkhof, N. E. Reijmerink, E. Dompeling, P. A. van den Brandt, I. Ferreira, et al. 2011. Mode and place of delivery, gastrointestinal microbiota, and their influence on asthma and atopy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 128:948-55 e1-3.
  15. Goedert, J. J., X. Hua, G. Yu, and J. Shi. 2014. Diversity and Composition of the Adult Fecal Microbiome Associated with History of Cesarean Birth or Appendectomy: Analysis of the American Gut Project. EBioMedicine 1:167-172.
  16. Lax, S., D. P. Smith, J. Hampton-Marcell, S. M. Owens, K. M. Handley, N. M. Scott, S. M. Gibbons, P. Larsen, B. D. Shogan, S. Weiss, et al. 2014. Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science 345:1048-1052.
  17. Brooks, B., B. Firek, C. Miller, I. Sharon, B. Thomas, R. Baker, M. Morowitz, and J. Banfield. 2014. Microbes in the neonatal intensive care unit resemble those found in the gut of premature infants. Microbiome 2:1.
  18. Raveh-Sadka, T., B. C. Thomas, A. Singh, B. Firek, B. Brooks, C. J. Castelle, I. Sharon, R. Baker, M. Good, M. J. Morowitz, et al. 2015. Gut bacteria are rarely shared by co-hospitalized premature infants, regardless of necrotizing enterocolitis development, vol. 4.
  19. Zivkovic, A. M., Z. T. Lewis, J. B. German, and D. A. Mills. 2013. Establishment of a Milk-Oriented Microbiota (MOM) in Early Life: How Babies Meet Their Moms. Functional Food Reviews 5:3-12.
  20. Smilowitz, J. T., C. B. Lebrilla, D. A. Mills, J. B. German, and S. L. Freeman. 2014. Breast Milk Oligosaccharides: Structure-Function Relationships in the Neonate. Annual Review of Nutrition 34:143-169.
  21. Lewis, Z., S. Totten, J. Smilowitz, M. Popovic, E. Parker, D. Lemay, M. Van Tassell, M. Miller, Y.-S. Jin, J. German, et al. 2015. Maternal fucosyltransferase 2 status affects the gut bifidobacterial communities of breastfed infants. Microbiome 3:13.
  22. Eloe-Fadrosh, E. A., A. Brady, J. Crabtree, E. F. Drabek, B. Ma, A. Mahurkar, J. Ravel, M. Haverkamp, A.-M. Fiorino, C. Botelho, et al. 2015. Functional Dynamics of the Gut Microbiome in Elderly People during Probiotic Consumption. mBio 6.
  23. Bezirtzoglou, E., A. Tsiotsias, and G. W. Welling. 2011. Microbiota profile in feces of breast- and formula-fed newborns by using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Anaerobe 17:478-482.
  24. Guaraldi, F., and G. Salvatori. 2012. Effect of Breast and Formula Feeding on Gut Microbiota Shaping in Newborns. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 2:94.
  25. Zijlmans, M. A. C., K. Korpela, J. M. Riksen-Walraven, W. M. de Vos, and C. de Weerth. 2015. Maternal prenatal stress is associated with the infant intestinal microbiota. Psychoneuroendocrinology 53:233-245.

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.

 

 

About Cara Gibson

cara gibson head shot 2015Cara Gibson, BSc (Hon), MS, PhD was trained as an entomologist (insect scientist) and her interests include ecology, biodiversity, and interactions with microbial symbionts. She has worked as a field ecologist, research scientist, educator, outreach coordinator, and scientific illustrator. Dr. Gibson would like to help bridge the gap between current practices and new research to improve women’s health and birth outcomes. Contact Cara at caramgibson at gmail dot com for illustration inquiries / permissions.

 

 

 

 

Babies, Breastfeeding, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, New Research, Newborns , , , , , ,

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