Co-sleeping mothers at higher risk of developing depression, new study claims

Agencies
March 2, 2018

Washington, Mar 2: Turns out, mothers who co-sleep with infants beyond six months may feel more depressed and judged by others.

According to a Penn State-study, mothers who choose to co-sleep with their infants are more likely to feel depressed or judged when faced with recent trends and popular advice telling moms not to sleep with their babies.

After analyzing moms' sleeping patterns and feelings about sleep for the first year of their babies' lives, the researchers found that mothers who were still co-sleeping - sharing either a room or bed - with their infants after six months were more likely to feel depressed, worried about their babies' sleep and think their decisions were being criticized.

Douglas Teti of the Penn State said that regardless of current parenting trends, it's important to find a sleep arrangement that works for everyone in the family.

"In other parts of the world, co-sleeping is considered normal, while here in the U.S., it tends to be frowned upon," Teti said. "Co-sleeping, as long as it is done safely, is fine as long as both parents are on board with it. If it's working for everyone, and everyone is okay with it, then co-sleeping is a perfectly acceptable option."

The researchers said that while most American families begin co-sleeping when their babies are first born, most of those families transition the babies to their own room by the time he or she is six months old. Teti said concerns about sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) or the desire for babies to learn how to fall asleep on their own may be why many parents in the U.S. prefer their babies to be sleep alone.

Teti said this study - which analysed the sleeping habits of 103 mothers in their baby's first year of life - saw a similar pattern in its participants. "We found that about 73 percent of families co-slept at the one-month point. That dropped to about 50 percent by three months, and by six months, it was down to about 25 percent," Teti said. "Most babies that were in co-sleeping arrangements in the beginning were moved out into solitary sleep by six months."

On average, mothers that were still co-sleeping after six months reported feeling about 76 percent more depressed than mothers who had moved their baby into a separate room. They also reportedly felt about 16 percent more criticised or judged for their sleep habits.

"We definitely saw that the persistent co-sleepers -- the moms that were still co-sleeping after six months -- were the ones who seemed to get the most criticism," Teti said. "Additionally, they also reported greater levels of worry about their baby's sleep, which makes sense when you're getting criticized about something that people are saying you shouldn't be doing, that raises self-doubt. That's not good for anyone."

Teti said that the study isn't about whether co-sleeping is good or bad, but about the importance of finding a sleep arrangement that works well while not neglecting your partner or spouse.

"If you're going to co-sleep, you have to make sure both people in the partnership have talked it through and both people are in sync with what they want to do," Teti said. "If not, that's when criticism and arguments can happen and possibly spill over into the relationship with child. So you want to avoid that. You need to make sure you have time with your partner, as well."

Teti also said that even when co-sleeping works well, it can still cause more loss of sleep for the parents than if the baby slept in its own room.

"If you co-sleep, it is going to disrupt your sleep, and probably Mom's sleep more than Dad's," Teti said. "So this is something to be careful with if you're not good with chronic sleep debt. Co-sleeping needs to work well for everyone, and that includes getting adequate sleep. To be the best parent you can be, you have to take care of yourself, and your child benefits as a result", concluded Teti.

The study is published in the journal Infant and Child Development.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 10,2020

Washington D.C., May 9: Do the middle age feel much stressful now, and seems to have changed over time, if compared to the life in the 90s? Well, this recent study indicates that it might be true.

The study has signalled to the fact that life may become more stressful majorly for middle-aged people than it was in the 1990s. The researchers reached this analysis even before the novel coronavirus started sweeping the globe.

A team of researchers led by Penn State found that across all ages, there was a slight increase in daily stress in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. But when researchers restricted the sample to people between the ages of 45 and 64, there was a sharp increase in daily stress.

"On average, people reported about 2 percent more stressors in the 2010s compared to people in the past," said David M. Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State.

"That's around an additional week of stress a year. But what really surprised us is that people at mid-life reported a lot more stressors, about 19 percent more stress in 2010 than in 1990. And that translates to 64 more days of stress a year."

Almeida said the findings were part of a larger project aiming to discover whether health during the middle of Americans' lives has been changing over time.

"Certainly, when you talk to people, they seem to think that daily life is more hectic and less certain these days," Almeida said.

For the study, the researchers collected data from 1,499 adults in 1995 and 782 different adults in 2012.

Almeida said the goal was to study two cohorts of people who were the same age at the time the data was collected but born in different decades. All study participants were interviewed daily for eight consecutive days.

During each daily interview, the researchers asked the participants about their stressful experiences throughout the previous 24 hours.

They asked questions related to arguments with family or friends or feeling overwhelmed at home or work, so and so. The participants were also asked how severe their stress was and whether those stressors were likely to impact other areas of their lives.

"We were able to estimate not only how frequently people experienced stress, but also what those stressors mean to them," Almeida said.

"For example, did this stress affect their finances or their plans for the future. And by having these two cohorts of people, we were able to compare daily stress processes in 1990 with daily stress processes in 2010," Almeida added.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that participants reported significantly more daily stress and lower well-being in the 2010s compared to the 1990s.

Additionally, participants reported a 27 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their finances and a 17 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their future plans.

Almeida said he was surprised not that people were more stressed now than in the 90s, but at the age group that was mainly affected.

"We thought that with economic uncertainty, life might be more stressful for younger adults. But we didn't see that. We saw more stress for people at mid-life," Almeida said.

"And maybe that's because they have children who are facing an uncertain job market while also responsible for their own parents. So it's this generational squeeze that's making stress more prevalent for people at mid-life," he concluded.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 18,2020

China, where the novel coronavirus originated, has reported 111 cases since beginning of May, which shows the infection rate has dipped, and 3 deaths since April 27, according to the WHO. A Shanghai-based Noida doctor says China is close to winning the battle against COVID-19, and the combination of zinc, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and antibiotic azithromycin has been able to save the lives of coronavirus patients.

Speaking to media persons, Dr Sanjeev Choubey, Medical Director Internal Medicine at St. Michael Hospital said this combination has been adopted as a line of treatment for patients infected with coronavirus, and as a result patients are recovering, decreasing their need for intensive care.

What is the line of treatment for COVID-19 patients, which also include asymptomatic patients?

The combination of zinc, hydroxychloroquine and antibiotic azithromycin has produced positive results, and it helped in the recovery of many COVID-19 patients. The combination -- Ascorbic Acid, B-complex, Zinc, Selenium, L-carnitine, Vitamin B-12 and Glutathione normal saline should be administered on patients twice a week for at least 6 weeks. This is COVID-19 treatment protocol for prophylaxis, and it implies both asymptomatic and symptomatic along with other medicine support.

Based on your experience on COVID-19 in China, after how many tests, is it safe to call a person coronavirus free?

The coronavirus should be performed at least 9 times, before terming a patient COVID-19 free. It is a standard in China. This procedure has worked in China and it will also work in India. Minimum five tests should be mandatory through RT-PCR.

Does coronavirus majorly attack the respiratory system or it could lead to organ failure too?

Line of treatment should not be just looking at the respiratory system, as the problem lies somewhere else. COVID-19 attacks many vital organs in the body. In China, a coronavirus patient died from a stroke. In the autopsy it was found that the innermost layer in the arteries was swollen. It was concluded that coronavirus had inflamed the layer of the arteries leading to clotting, which was a factor in generating a heart attack. Therefore, COVID-19 is not just a respiratory problem.

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, should autopsy be made mandatory in the case of unpredictable death or where reasons for death are not unknown?

Patients below 50 years, who die suddenly and the reasons are not known, then it should be mandatory to conduct the autopsy. After death, coronavirus is active in the body for five days, and it fades away on day 6. Therefore, if an autopsy is done then it will help in understanding this disease. In China, we have seen young COVID-19 patients, aged 22 and 28, succumbed to strokes.

Since the beginning of May, India has recorded more than 2,000 cases everyday in the first week, then it jumped past 3,000 mark in the second week. Finally, the tally is 4,987 on May 17. At 90,927 cases, has India progressed into community transmission or Stage3?

Yes, India has moved into Stage 3. The data suggests that 3,000 to 4,000 active COVID-19 cases, who are asymptomatic, are moving around and spreading the infection. The research has indicated that COVID-19 from an infected person spreads in 30 minutes to non-infected persons. The relaxation on the lockdown will certainly contribute to a high infection rate.

Do you think India has reached its peak in COVID-19 cases, or the sharp rise will continue till July end?

It seems India has already reached its peak and cases will begin to come down from June end or beginning of July first week. If social distancing norms are followed then certainly things can improve, but if not followed then it may get worse. High population density is a major contributor for the increase in cases. The government should continue to focus on finding hotspots, and urge people to follow the rules, eventually it is for people’s own benefit.

Has China won the battle against COVID-19?

It seems China has won the battle by not opening up Wuhan. The Chinese are following a COVID-19 patient’s engagement program, where the authorities continuously interact with people infected with the disease. The Government of India should reward people who follow the guidelines; it will help in setting up a positive trend in the society.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 26,2020

Feb 26: While too much stress can be toxic to your health, a new study suggests that despite its negative side effects, it may also lead to a surprising social benefit.

The research, published in the journal Stress & Health, found that experiencing stress made people both more likely to give and receive emotional support from another person.

This was true on the day they experienced the stressor as well as the following day.

"Our findings suggest that just because we have a bad day, that doesn't mean it has to be completely unhealthy," said study researcher David Almeida from Penn State University in the US.

"If stress can actually connect us with other people, which I think is absolutely vital to the human experience, I think that's a benefit. Stress could potentially help people deal with negative situations by driving them to be with other people," Almeida added.

For the study, the researchers interviewed 1,622 participants every night for eight nights. They asked the participants about their stressors and whether they gave or received emotional support on that day.

Stressors included arguments, stressful events at work or school, and stressful events at home.

The researchers found that on average, participants were more than twice as likely to either give or receive emotional support on days they experienced a stressor.

Additionally, they were 26 per cent more likely to give or receive support the following day.

The researchers said that while this effect, on average, was found across the participants, it differed slightly between men and women.

"Women tended to engage in more giving and receiving emotional support than men," said study researcher Hye Won Chai.

"In our study, men were also more likely to engage in emotional support on days they were stressed, but to a lesser extent than women," Chai added.

The researchers said they were surprised that stress was linked to people not just receiving emotional support, but giving it, as well.

"We saw that someone experiencing a stressor today actually predicted them giving emotional support the next day," Almeida said.

"This made me think that it's actually possible that stress helps to drive you to other people and allows it to be ok to talk about problems -- your problems, my problems," Almeida added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.