Talk:Infant/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Benefits of Touch" Subheading Edit

Hello, last week I made an edit to the "Benefits of Touch" subheading to this article that was removed and wanted to clarify that I only wanted to emphasize and give more reasons as to why touch is important and beneficial for an infant. One big example of touch that is vital for infants is skin-to-skin contact. I understand that the information I added in came from one source and a small study, but if more references were used, I thought that maybe this part of the article could use a little bit more information. M0rgan100237 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It isn't about 'more references' but about references that comply with WP:MEDRS. In this case it would call for a systematic review that combines multiple studies. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You are correct in thinking that skin-to- skin can use more information. Here is the kind of info that MrOllie is talking about [1]. why don't you write something here and we will help you with it. Sectionworker (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so I was thinking maybe the following information could be placed after the paragraph titled "Benefits of Touch", or somehow integrated into the already existing paragraph (if it follows the guidelines):

Additionally, skin-to-skin contact, also sometimes referred to as kangaroo care, has proven to have multiple benefits for infants. For instance, skin-to-skin contact can help with mother-infant bonding as it allows them to feel secure and release positive-feeling hormones such as oxytocin. Furthermore, skin-to-skin contact has also shown to have a positive effect on neurophysiological development in infants because the touch from a mother activates certain parts of the brain, such as the frontal cortex, which helps with the development of its structure.

I tried to be more general in this description of benefits for SSC than the last because I don't know if this still counts towards biomedical research guidelines. I'm also confused because the references I'm using are coming from journals...but are my sources not considered reliable here? M0rgan100237 (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You're citing a single study, and what looks like an opinion article. Please, read WP:MEDRS - you should be using meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews. I see this is a course assignment for you - it will probably be easier if you switch topics to something that isn't related to medicine or human biology, then you won't have to deal with the special sourcing requirements. MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You still don't understand. The kind of refs that you need here are not single studies but are reviews of all of the current information with a report on that. For example if there is "breaking news" that some or another chemical has just been found to effect some or another part of the brain, we don't use that information in a medical article. We need to wait to see if other research finds something similar and many new reports are put into medical journals. Then a group of researchers read all of the available literature (that has been peer reviewed) and writes an article on it. We can use that one. For example, see this article: [2] Do you understand now? Sectionworker (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. M0rgan100237 (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2023

Change Furthermore, strong parental involvement at falling asleep is associated with shorter sleep duration, slower falling asleep and more frequent night-time awakenings in the studies analysed. Strong parental involvement is understood to include parental presence, cradling, or breastfeeding at bedtime, as well as carrying the infant to sleep and then putting the infant down. Strong parental involvement has a negative effect on infant sleep because the infant cannot develop the ability to self-soothe. On the other hand, low parental involvement at bedtime gives the infant room to learn self-soothing and self-regulation.[20]: 24 

In 2020, a Finnish study established (according to the research leader) for the first time a reference value for infant sleep quality based on a large data set (about 5,700 babies).[21][22] Almost 40% of the participating parents with eight-month-old babies said they were worried about their sleep. In fact, sleep problems were common; however, children fall asleep faster, wake up less often during the night and stay awake less late at night the older they get. At the same time, total sleep time decreases.

The study was also able to determine reference values for normal sleep (see table). Children who sleep significantly less than average would usually benefit from supportive measures, for which a number of methods would be available (a discussion with the pediatrician or see, for example, the article on sleep training).[17]

Age Time until falling asleep Wakings per night Waking time per night 12 months 0–30 min 0–2.5× 0–20 min

30–40 min	 2–4×	 20–45 min
> 40 min	 > 4×	 > 45 min

24 months 0–30 min 0–1× 0–8 min

30–45 min	 1–2×	 8–15 min
> 40 min	 > 2×	 > 40 min

Key:

= normal sleep
= Sleep hygiene should be improved
= it is recommended to seek help (pediatrician, sleep counselling).

to:

Frequent awakenings are protective of SIDS in the first year, and young children tend to awaken frequently for a few years (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513387/)

New research has also deemed infant sleep on a spectrum, rather than a set number of hours following a set pattern (Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29073398/).

Studies have also shown that Maleekakashyap (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This request is to change a lot of sourced material to something quite different and much shorter. In my opinion this should be discussed more extensively before being implemented. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2024

In the introduction, please remove this paragraph:

Premature infants are born prior to 37 weeks of gestation.[3] Full term infants are born between 39 and 40 weeks of gestation. Late term infants are born through 41 weeks and anything beyond 42 weeks is considered post term.

and replace it with this:

Infants born prior to 37 weeks of gestation are called "premature",[3] those born between 39 and 40 weeks are "full term", those born through 41 weeks are "late term", and anything beyond 42 weeks is considered "post term".

The focus of this paragraph is terminology, but the current wording has too much focus on weeks. It means "if they're born at this date, they're called this", but the current wording can be misread as "If they have this status [e.g. premature], they're born at this date". In other words, the causation is wrong. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. PianoDan (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)