| Title |
Racial Differences in Trends and Predictors of Infant Sleep Positioning in South Carolina, 1996–2007
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Maternal and Child Health Journal, December 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10995-010-0718-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael G. Smith, Ji-Hong Liu, Kristen H. Helms, Kristin L. Wilkerson |
| Abstract |
This paper examines racial differences in trends and predictors of prone and lateral infant sleep positioning among South Carolina mothers and infants. Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System data were used to analyze linear trends in prone, lateral, and supine infant sleep positioning among 14,648 mother-infant pairs from 1996 to 2007. Logistic regression models were used to examine the predictors of prone and lateral positioning among 9,015 mother-infant pairs from 2000 to 2007. From 1996 to 2007, white infants experienced a reduction in both prone and lateral positioning and an increase in supine positioning (28.2-66.7%), while black infants had smaller decreases in prone and lateral positioning and a smaller increase in supine positioning (22.6-47.1%) than white infants. Compared to births in 2000-2005, births after the explicit recommendation that infants not be placed in the lateral sleep position (2006-2007) were associated with decreased odds of lateral positioning among white infants (odds ratio [OR]: 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51, 0.87) but not among black infants. The significant predictors of white infants being placed in the prone position were different from the predictors for black infants. Additionally, with regard to lateral sleep positioning, more significant predictors were observed among white infants than black infants. These findings suggest that efforts are warranted to increase the prevalence of supine sleep positioning, especially among black infants. Race-specific programs may efficiently reduce non-supine sleep positioning to help narrow racial gaps in sudden infant death syndrome. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 25% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 22% |
| Psychology | 7 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#7,942,395
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#839
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,387
of 176,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 176,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.