4.5 Article

Problems of feeding, sleeping and excessive crying in infancy: a general population study

期刊

ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD
卷 104, 期 11, 页码 1034-1041

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2019-316851

关键词

-

资金

  1. Tryg Foundation
  2. Mrs Herman's Memorial Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To study regulatory problems (RPs) of feeding, sleeping and excessive crying in infancy, and explore the influence of maternal mental health problems and parent-child relationship problems. Design and setting Data were collected in the general child health surveillance delivered to infant families by community health nurses (CHNs). Information on CHNs' assessments and conclusions were obtained on 2598 infants and merged with data from national registers. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to study RPs in early and late infancy, and the influences due to child, family and parent-child relationship problems. Results Combined RPs (C-RPs), defined as two or more simultaneous problems of feeding, sleeping or excessive crying, was identified in 2.9% and 8.6% of the population between age 2-6 and 8-11 months, respectively. Low maternal schooling and immigrant parents were associated with an increased risk of late C-RPs, but RPs in early infancy stand out as the main predictor of late C-RPs OR 3.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 6.6), and the effect of early maternal mental health problems and parent-child relationship problems seem to be mediated by early C-RPs. Conclusions Combined problems of feeding, sleeping or excessive crying may exist throughout infancy independently of exposures to maternal mental health problems and parent-child relationship problems. The results indicate that infants with RPs exceeding age 2 months need special attention, in clinical as well as community settings. Suggested intervention includes specific guidance to the parents to help them understand and regulate their infant's sensitivity and reactions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据