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

Anne-Laure Sellier, Inge Harrewijn, Christele Gras Leguen, Martin Chalumeau, Sabine Plancoulaine, Floortje Kanits, Rachel Y. Moon, Jeremie F. Cohen, Yaël Pinhas and Sophie de Visme
Additional contact information
Anne-Laure Sellier: HEC Paris - Marketing
Inge Harrewijn: CHU Montpellier
Christele Gras Leguen: Nantes University Hospital - Pediatric Department
Martin Chalumeau: Necker-Sick Children Hospital
Sabine Plancoulaine: Paris Cité University
Floortje Kanits: Wageningen University
Rachel Y. Moon: University of Virginia
Jeremie F. Cohen: Paris Cité University
Yaël Pinhas: Paris Cité University
Sophie de Visme: Paris Cité University

No 1611, HEC Research Papers Series from HEC Paris

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.

Keywords: SUDI; SIDS; safe infant sleep recommendations (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D84 I12 I18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 31 pages
Date: 2025-03-22
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5181670 Full text (text/html)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 403 Forbidden

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ebg:heccah:1611

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5181670

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in HEC Research Papers Series from HEC Paris HEC Paris, 1 Rue de la Libération, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Antoine Haldemann ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).