↓ Skip to main content

Excessive crying and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in infants: misalignment of biology and culture

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Hypotheses, January 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Excessive crying and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in infants: misalignment of biology and culture
Published in
Medical Hypotheses, January 2005
DOI 10.1016/j.mehy.2004.12.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pamela S. Douglas

Abstract

Excessive crying is the most common problem presenting to the doctor in the first months of life in western industrialised societies, affecting up to 30% of infants. There has been an exponential increase in the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) in babies who cry excessively over the past few decades, and many parents believe their crying infant "has reflux". This paper proposes that culturocentric assumptions have confused interpretation of research into GORD, and re-examines the findings of GORD research from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biologists argue that the human infant is an exterogestate foetus for at least the first six months of life, dependent on maternal co-regulation for optimal physiological function. However, infant-care practices in western industrialised societies shifted towards an emphasis on infant autonomy at the time of the Industrial Revolution. From the perspective of evolutionary biology, a misalignment between western culture and the biological expectations of the infant developed over two million years of evolution may result in excessive crying in less adapted babies. The key biocultural factors that impact on infant distress are feeding management, parental responsiveness, sensory nourishment and sleep management. When the concept of the human infant as an exterogestate foetus is integrated with the findings of GORD research, a hypothesis and its corollary emerge. This hypothesis proposes that infant GORD is a physiological manifestation of misalignment between biology and culture, and proposes, as a corollary, that if the impact of biocultural factors upon the physiology of otherwise well crying babies is not addressed in the first months of life, populations of infants who cry excessively may be predisposed to GORD after three to four months of age. If this hypothesis is correct, an integrated clinical approach to crying babies less than three to four months of age that considers feeding management (e.g., frequent feeds, breast- or bottle-feeding technique, referral to a lactation consultant, cow's milk allergy), parental responsiveness (e.g., prompt response to infant cues), sensory nourishment (e.g., sling or backpack, walks, massage) and sleep management (e.g., nocturnal co-sleeping) should, firstly, decrease crying when applied to infants less than three to four months of age, and secondly, decrease the incidence of GORD in these infants once they are older than three to four months of age. Thirdly, if this hypothesis is correct, combining the integrated approach with pharmaceutical intervention should improve outcomes in infants diagnosed with GORD.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 68 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 18 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Psychology 8 11%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 21 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 May 2012.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Medical Hypotheses
#3,656
of 4,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,748
of 151,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Hypotheses
#145
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 151,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.