IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ebg/heccah/1611.html

Inconsistency of Infant Caretakers’ Visual Exposome with Safe Infant Sleep Recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Sellier, Anne-Laure

    (HEC Paris - Marketing)

  • Harrewijn, Inge

    (CHU Montpellier)

  • Leguen, Christele Gras

    (Nantes University Hospital - Pediatric Department)

  • Chalumeau, Martin

    (Necker-Sick Children Hospital)

  • Plancoulaine, Sabine

    (Paris Cité University)

  • Kanits, Floortje

    (Wageningen University)

  • Moon, Rachel Y.

    (University of Virginia)

  • Cohen, Jeremie F.

    (Paris Cité University)

  • Pinhas, Yaël

    (Paris Cité University)

  • de Visme, Sophie

    (Paris Cité University)

Abstract

BackgroundRates of sudden unexpected death in infancy remain high in several high-income countries. Rates of parental practices for infant sleep were recently found frequently inconsistent with safe infant sleep recommendations (SISRs). Among the various factors reported to influence infant caretakers’ behaviors, images act via the influence mechanisms of authority, social proof, and unity. We systematically assessed the level of inconsistency between SISRs and pictures of sleeping infants or infant sleep environments that were visible in public spaces.MethodsIn November 2023, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify studies evaluating the level of inconsistency between SISRs and pictures in physical and digital public spaces. Data were extracted independently by 2 authors. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain summary estimates of the proportions of pictures inconsistent with SISRs.FindingsWe screened 1,086 articles and included 7 studies conducted between 2008 and 2023 analyzing pictures found in parenting magazines, online and print newspapers, baby diaper packaging, commercial stock photography websites, and Instagram. The overall risk of bias was deemed low. Among the 5,442 pictures depicting sleeping infants or infant sleep environments, the summary estimates of the proportion of inconsistencies with SISRs were 39% (95% confidence interval –CI- 25-56) for a non-supine sleeping position, 5% (95% CI 2-16) for a soft sleeping surface, 8% (95% CI 4-16) for sharing the sleeping surface, 22% (95% CI 8-49) for an unsafe crib, 58% (95% CI 38-76) for soft objects or loose bedding, 17% (95% CI 15-20) for a covered head, and 85% (95% CI 66-94) for at least one inconsistency. All summary estimates had a significant between-study heterogeneity.InterpretationInfant caretakers’ visual exposome is greatly inconsistent with SISRs and could lead to dangerous practices. Actions from stakeholders and legislators are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Sellier, Anne-Laure & Harrewijn, Inge & Leguen, Christele Gras & Chalumeau, Martin & Plancoulaine, Sabine & Kanits, Floortje & Moon, Rachel Y. & Cohen, Jeremie F. & Pinhas, Yaël & de Visme, Sophie, 2025. "Inconsistency of Infant Caretakers’ Visual Exposome with Safe Infant Sleep Recommendations," HEC Research Papers Series 1611, HEC Paris.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:1611
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5181670
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5181670
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2139/ssrn.5181670?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:1611. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Antoine Haldemann The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Antoine Haldemann to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hecpafr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.