Better to comfort babies than let them cry
Babies not held and soothed cried 50 percent more, study found
Updated: 4:01 p.m. ET May 31, 2006
LONDON - Comforting babies is better than letting them cry and ultimately
results in fewer tears, at least during the first few weeks of life.
British researchers who compared the benefits of soothing bawling babies or
letting them settle themselves found that holding and comforting them
minimized the crying.
"The hands-off approach appeared to backfire: babies fussed and cried 50
percent more at two and five weeks," New Scientist magazine said on
Wednesday.
And they were still crying more after 12 weeks," it added.
Ian St James-Roberts, of the University of London's Institute of Education,
examined the benefits of different approaches used by British, Danish and
American parents who kept a diary of their baby's behavior and their own
responses.
Some parents held their babies for up to 16 hours a day and quickly answered
their cries while others had them in their arms much less and left them
crying for awhile.
St James-Roberts said comforting the baby on demand, rather than a very high
level of comfort and care, minimized the tears.
"But it makes no difference to the unsoothable bouts of crying that are the
core of colic," he told the magazine.
Leanne Wynne
Midwife in charge of "Women's Business"
Mildura Aboriginal Health Service Mob 0418 371862
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.