Mother-Infant

CO-SLEEPING
Heather M. Mesich, MHS, RN
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/mcnjournal by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3OlGIyw74G1/a4Yo9oyk9pro+4ZyWXNZnAu3ZrHSurHE= on 03/20/2020

Abstract
Mother-infant co-sleeping is debated fervent-
ly in the research literature. While studies
abound, there is no precise answer to this co-
nundrum, and parents continue to ask nurses
for their best opinions about the safety of co-
sleeping. The puzzling results of these studies
have occurred partly because of : (1) retro-
spective study designs, (2) lack of control
over covariables, (3) misclassification of infant
deaths, and (4) unknown prevalence of co-
sleeping practices. This article describes the
salient issues nurses need to understand in
the mother-infant co-sleeping debate, and
suggests ways that nurses can help parents
to modify risk factors and safety measures if
they desire co-sleeping.

Key Words: Bedsharing; Medical re-

search; Preventative measures; Sudden infant
death.

R
ecent studies have shown that infants who are placed in
unsafe sleep environments can be at risk for death.
However, what qualifies as “unsafe” is still being debat-
ed among the proponents of co-sleeping and lone sleeping.
Nurses are often the health professionals asked to advise moth-
ers on this issue; therefore, they have to navigate the disparities
in the literature, critically evaluate the research, and decide
how best to advise their patients. While no sleep environment
is completely without risk, this article strives to help nurses as-
sist parents to reduce the risk of accidental death for their in-
fant, regardless of which sleep environment they choose.

30 VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 January/February 2005

Understanding the Debate and Maximizing
Infant Safety
Definition of Terms
One of the problems in the literature is that the definition
of “co-sleeping” is not always the same. When the term
“co-sleeping” is used without the word “mother” attached,
the identification of the co-sleeper(s) is unknown. For the
purposes of this article, co-sleeping refers to a mother and
her infant sharing the same sleep surface during mutual
sleep.
“Sudden unexpected death in infancy” is the generic
term used when an infant is found dead, unexpectedly, af-
ter being laid down to sleep. In sudden unexpected death in
January/February 2005
infancy there is an identifiable cause of death.
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is different. This
term was adopted in 1989 by the American National Insti-
tute of Child Health and Human Development, which stat-
ed that an authentic case of SIDS involves the sudden death
of an infant under 1 year of age which remains unex-
plained after a thorough case investigation, including per-
formance of a complete autopsy, examination of the death
scene, and review of the clinical history (Person, Lavezzi, &
Wolf, 2002).
“Overlaying” is another term found often in this litera-
ture. It generally means that the infant has died due to me-
chanical asphyxiation or smothering, usually because some
other, larger person has unintentionally laid over them.
Arguments Against Co-Sleeping
Anti-co-sleeping advocates believe there are three main
dangers associated with co-sleeping:
• There is the risk of overlaying.
• There is the risk of entrapment, wedging, falling, and
strangulation that can occur as a result of sleeping on a
surface that is not designed for infants.
• Co-sleeping might have a negative effect on childhood
development.
The Evidence Against Co-Sleeping
Nakamura, Wind, and Danello’s (1999) article brought the
debate about co-sleeping to a new level when it was picked
up by the media and publicized in newspapers across the
world. Their study was a retrospective review and analysis
of data collected by a U.S. Consumer Product Safety Com-
mission (CPSC) on deaths of children 2 years who were
placed to sleep on adult beds. Of the 515 infant deaths that
occurred over a 7-year span, 121 (23%, or approximately
17 per year) were a result of overlaying, and 394 (77%)
were due to entrapment of the sleep environment. Other
studies have since found similar results (Collins, 2001; Dra-
go & Dannenberg, 1999; Kemp et al., 2000; Person et al.,
2002; Thogmartin, Siebert, & Pellan 2000).
Disturbingly, the number of reported deaths of infants
found on sleep surfaces not designed for infants are in-
creasing (Scheers, Rutherford, & Kemp, 2003). Anti-co-
sleeping advocates believe that the only place where an in-
fant can sleep safely is alone, and in a federally approved
crib.
In addition to safety issues, there is some evidence that
co-sleeping may be stressful, and may negatively affect nor-
mal infant development (Hunsley & Thoman, 2001).
MCN 31
Arguments for Co-Sleeping
Pro co-sleeping advocates believe that mother-infant co-
sleeping is a natural and instinctive form of nurturing that
is intrinsic to human existence. They argue that it is only in
the past 200 years (and only in some parts of North Amer-
ican and Europe) that co-sleeping has been discouraged,
and that anti-co-sleepers are trying to impose their views
on the world. Pro co-sleeping advocates believe that co-
sleeping may prevent SIDS and that accidental suffocations
during co-sleeping are preventable by modifying the sleep
environment. Advocates believe that any risks associated
with co-sleeping are minimal compared with the risks and
deprivation infants face when they sleep alone.
The Evidence for Co-Sleeping
Some pro co-sleeping researchers have written that co-
sleeping may provide protection against SIDS. Theories put
forward by McKenna, Mosko, & Richard (1997) about
how this might work include: (1) bedsharing promotes
breastfeeding, (2) external stimulation causing increased
The literature contains strong
arguments both for and against
mother-infant co-sleeping.
arousability, (3) increased CO2 triggering infant breathing
stimulation, and (4) bedding aeration preventing rebreath-
ing asphyxiation. Supporting these theories, Scheers, Day-
ton, and Kemp (1998) found that fewer infants were found
dead while co-sleeping with their external airways covered
than infants found dead in solitary sleep.
Because co-sleeping increases the frequency of nocturnal
breastfeeding (McKenna et al., 1997; Pollard, Flemming,
Young, & Sawczenko, 1999), researchers have suggested
that frequent day and nocturnal feedings can prolong sup-
pressed maternal ovulation, and that this may have an im-
portant impact on child spacing and the prevention of
some cancers. They also argue that frequent nocturnal
breastfeeding maintains maternal prolactin at increased lev-
els, citing research that demonstrates infants who routinely
co-sleep also experience other childcare practices that en-
hance and extend close parental proximity for the first
months of life (Buckley, Rigda, Mundy, & McMillan,
2002).
Several studies have indicated that more infants die dur-
ing their sleep when they are in a room by themselves than
when they share a room with their parents (Beal & Byard,
1999; Blair 1999; Scragg et al. 1996). Anderson (2000) has
pointed out that approximately 16 deaths occur each year
in federally regulated cribs; this number is similar to the
32 VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1
number of deaths as a result of overlaying on shared sleep
surfaces (17 deaths per year) in the CPSC study (Nakamu-
ra et al., 1999).
Problematic Themes in the Literature
The development of these two bodies of opposing evidence
are important to reflect upon, and to examine why they are
so dissimilar. There could be many reasons for these find-
ings. It is interesting that some sets of authors consistently
discover positive findings for co-sleeping; this could be be-
cause there really are such advantages, or perhaps because
objectivity about the topic has been misplaced.
Four problematic themes throughout co-sleeping litera-
ture can be examined to explain the divergent results.
Research Design and Conclusions Drawn
Retrospective reviews dominate the literature for co-sleep-
ing. It is well known that retrospective designs are not
powerful research designs, and cannot test hypotheses or
demonstrate cause and effect relationships (Polit, Beck, &
Hungler, 2001). Retrospective de-
signs do not manipulate the inde-
pendent variable, have no control
groups, and do not use randomiza-
tion; they are not experiments and,
therefore, can never demonstrate
cause and effect. This is especially
significant in co-sleeping literature
where there are currently so many
unknown variables.
The research conducted by the
group including Mosko, Richard,
and McKenna is consistently sup-
portive of mother-infant co-sleeping and is referenced in
the literature reviews of most articles pertaining to this
subject. However, we cannot come to conclusions from
their research, for sometimes they have found opposing
physiology in their infant sleep studies. For example, one
study (McKenna et al., 1997) concludes that since bed-
sharing promotes breastfeeding, then bedsharing must be
protective against SIDS; this conclusion is made despite
the lack of conclusive evidence in the literature to indi-
cate that breastfeeding is protective for SIDS (Horne et
al., 2004). In another study (Mosko, Richard, McKenna,
Drummond, & Mukai, 1997), they found that co-sleep-
ing infants are exposed to low levels of CO2 (due to close
face proximity to their mother); they conclude that this
exposure suppresses periodic breathing, thereby “com-
pensating for a respiratory control defect thought by
many to lead to SIDS” (Mosko et al., p. 325). In 1998,
the same group (Richard, Mosko, & McKenna, 1998)
published a study in which they found opposite results:
co-sleeping infants experienced a higher incidence of pe-
riodic breathing than lone sleeping infants; they conclud-
ed that these data truly represented infant sleep physiolo-
gy. If this is so, then their previous indication that SIDS
might be correlated with low lower levels of periodic
breathing is questionable.
January/February 2005
 Table 1. Research Control for Modifiable Risk Factors in
Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy

Bedding That
Infant Co-Sleeper Prenatal
Compressibility Type of Infant Can Lead to
Maternal Health Identification Drug and and
Article of Sleep Sleep Sleep Re-Breathing,
Weight Before of Co-Sleeper Alcohol Passive
Surface Surface Position or
Death Consumption Smoking
Asphyxiation

Caroll-Pankhurst and
4 2 1 2 1 2 4 4 1
Mortimer, 2001

Collins, 2001 0 0 4 4 2 4 4 0 2

Drago and
0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 4
Dannenberg, 1999
Thogmartin, Siebert,
0 4 0 2 4 4 0 3 2
and Pellan, 2001
Kemp, Unger, Wilkins,
Psara, Ledbetter, 0 2 4 4 4 4 0 3 4
Graham, et al., 2000
Arnestad, Andersen,
3 4 0 0 4 0 3 4 4
Vege, and Rognum, 2001
Person, Lavezzi, and
0 2 1 4 0 1 4 1 3
Wolf, 2002
McGarvey, McDonnell,
Chong, O’Regan, and 0 4 0 4 4 1 4 4 4
Matthews, 2003
Nakamura, Wind, and
0 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 1
Danello, 1999
0-No mention of this variable in the research. 1-Variable identified as a potential risk factor in the literature, but not identified, or controlled for in the
research. Significance in relation to co-sleeping not discussed. 2-Variable identified as a potential risk factor in the literature, identified, or controlled
in the research. Significance in relation to co-sleeping not discussed. 3-Variable may be identified as a potential risk factor in the literature, but is
not identified, or controlled in the research. Potential for significance in relation to co-sleeping is discussed. 4-Variable identified as a potential risk
factor in the literature, identified, or controlled in the research. Significance in relation to co-sleeping is discussed.

Lack of Control for Extraneous Variables
The second troubling theme in the literature is the lack of
control of co-variables which could themselves be the cause
of the infant death (extraneous variables). Research that
implicates mother-infant co-sleeping with infant mortality
should identify and control for all known variables that
may contribute to the infant death in association with, or
independently of, mother-infant co-sleeping. Without this
information, it is impossible to determine whether mother-
infant co-sleeping, in the absence of certain modifiable risk
factors, is a significant threat to infant safety or, more im-
portantly, whether it poses a greater risk than lone sleeping.
Table 1 identifies several studies that link co-sleeping with
infant mortality. None of the studies controls for all of the
co-variables listed, despite these variables being document-
ed as having had significant effects on the outcomes of oth-
er research.
Cause of Death
The third problematic theme relates to the tendency to mis-
classify sudden unexpected deaths in infancy in western
countries (Carroll-Pankhurst & Mortimer, 2001). The rea-
son for this may be the difficulty in distinguishing post-
mortem findings between SIDS and unintentional or inten-
tional suffocation or smothering (Person et al., 2002). In
cases where autopsy findings are not conclusive, death
scene investigations should be able to differentiate an obvi-
ous overlay or wedging death from a SIDS death, but even
obvious accidental deaths are referred to as SIDS in certain
literature. For example, a study by Kemp et al. (2000) re-
ported that 25 SIDS victims were found prone, with their
noses and mouths into the bedding; another study reported
on four infants who died of SIDS; two were found under a
parent, one was found at the bottom of the bed, and one
was found on the floor (Blair, 1999).
Prevalence of Co-Sleeping
The final problematic theme involves the prevalence of co-
sleeping. Current research often identifies co-sleeping as a
risk factor for infant mortality based on the percentage of
infants found dead while co-sleeping compared with the
percentage of infants found dead while lone sleeping. How-

January/February 2005 MCN 33


Figure 1. Advice for parents
about safety measures for
all sleep environments.
• Always put infants to sleep on a firm mattress, whether
co-sleeping or lone sleeping. Never use a waterbed.
Never allow an infant to sleep on a soft couch or daybed.
• If an infant is to sleep in an adult bed, move the mattress
to the floor to prevent falling, and remove headboards,
foot boards, and side rails where infants can become
wedged.
• Remove all cords, ties, or other strangulation risks from
near the bed.
• Always use a tightly fitting fitted sheet on the surface
where an infant sleeps.
• Never use fluffy comforters, pillows, sheep skins, bean
bags, or quilts on top of or under sleeping infants.
• Always put infants to sleep on their backs. If the infant
has breastfed in a side lying position, move the infant to
its back for sleeping.
• Parental smoking is a risk factor for SIDS. There should be
no smoking at all in the home of an infant. Mothers who
smoke should not co-sleep with their infants.
• Overlaying is a definite risk when co-sleeping. The number
of co-sleepers should be limited to just mother and infant.
Mothers >175 lb have been shown to have higher risk of
overlaying while co-sleeping.
• Never co-sleep when you have used any depressant or
sedative drugs, when illegal drugs have been used, or
when alcohol has been consumed. Use of these sub-
stances significantly affects the adult’s ability to respond
and to be aroused if the infant has difficulty breathing.
ever, these numbers are only significant if they can be com-
pared with the numbers of co-sleeping and lone sleeping in-
fants in the population. According to a study conducted by
Willinger, Ko, Hoffman, Kessler, and Corwin (2003), 45%
of American infants spend at least some time at night on
an adult bed in a 2-week study period. The prevalence of
co-sleeping was even higher in another study conducted in
New Orleans, LA, where 85% of the study respondents re-
ported having slept with a child less than 6 months of age
(Weimer, Dise, Evers, & Ortiz, 2002). Additionally, the
subject is further complicated because no one knows the
number of deaths that are prevented as a result of mother-
infant co-sleeping (or if such an occurrence happens).
Calculating the prevalence of co-sleeping is difficult in
terms of definition and population. For example, some
mother-infant dyads sleep in physical contact throughout
the night whereas others might share the same sleep surface
but rarely touch. Similarly, those classified as co-sleepers
may be parents who habitually co-sleep with their children
for the entire night, or parents who co-sleep part of the
34 VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1
night or only on some nights (e.g., when the child is ill).
Arnestad, Andersen, Vege, & Rognum (2001), Klonoff-
Cohen & Eldelstein (1995), and Blair (1999) found no in-
creased risk of SIDS in infants who usually co-sleep and, in
a case-control study from Scotland, the authors identified
that while 34% of infants found dead were co-sleeping, on-
ly 8% routinely co-slept (Brooke, Gibson, Tappin, &
Brown, 1997). This is an important finding, for if these in-
fants were brought to their parents’ bed as a result of ill-
ness (a precursor for some SIDS cases), the percentage of
co-sleeping related deaths would artificially increase (Mc-
Garvey, McDonnell, Chong, O’Regan, & Matthews,
2003). Furthermore, the incidence of co-sleeping may be
underreported in communities where there is a stigma at-
tached to co-sleeping.
Maximizing Safety in Sleep
Environments
Because nurses are often asked their advice about this top-
ic, it is important that they understand the confusing na-
ture of the research evidence, and know what to tell par-
ents about establishing a safe sleep environment for their
children. The current state of the research cannot guide us
about safety/nonsafety of co-sleeping, but we do know that
certain sleep environments are riskier than others. Figure 1
describes recommendations about safe sleeping environ-
ments for both co-sleeping and lone sleeping infants. Par-
ents who choose to put their infants to sleep in cribs should
be advised of the federal safety standards for cribs and en-
sure that their infant’s crib meets or exceeds the standard.
Risks and Safety Measures Applicable
to All Sleep Environments
Rebreathing
The rebreathing hypothesis involves an infant rebreathing
his or her own trapped expelled CO2, thus inducing as-
phyxiation (Carleton, Donoghue, & Porter, 1998). Some
bedding has a higher rebreathing potential than other bed-
ding; soft mattresses pose a greater threat than firm mat-
tresses (Carleton et al., 1998; Hauck, Herman, Donovan,
& Iyasu, 2003). A study by Brooke et al. (1997) found that
mattresses that were used previously seemed to place an in-
fant at increased risk for SIDS, unless the mattresses were
completely covered by polyvinyl chloride. This suggests
that a firm newer mattress should be used in an infant’s
sleep environment. Applying an impermeable layer over the
mattress and a tight-fitting fitted sheet over the mattress
may help to reduce the risk of rebreathing if a new mat-
tress is not possible.
Fluffy comforters, pillows, sheep skins, bean bags, and
even some deceptively thin quilts (e.g., those made and sold
for infant use) have high-to -moderate rebreathing rates
and should be kept out of reach of sleeping infants. Thin
items (e.g., porous blankets, bed sheets) have low rebreath-
ing rates and are, therefore, appropriate for infants (Car-
January/February 2005
leton et al., 1998). Keeping the environment around the in-
fant’s face free of bedding also reduces the chances of re-
breathing.
Thermal Stress
Thermal stress and moderate hyperthermia have been
linked to SIDS since the 1980s (Guntheroth & Spiers,
2001). Parents should be advised to dress their infant ap-
propriately for comfortable sleeping. Infants should also
sleep with their heads uncovered to prevent thermal stress
and the likelihood of the head covering becoming displaced
and covering the external airways.
Infant Sleep Position
In 1992 the American Academy of Paediatrics began mak-
ing recommendations for infants to sleep in the supine po-
sition to reduce the risk of SIDS. The SIDS rate has since
dropped by 40% (Kattwinkel, Brooks, Keenan, & Malloy,
2000). The evidence overwhelmingly favors supine infant
sleeping; lateral sleep increases the risk of SIDS slightly, and
it is an unstable position from
which infants can roll into a prone
sleep position (Carpenter, Irgens,
Blair, & England, 2004; McGar- No sleep environment is
vey et al., 2003; Scragg & Mitchell,
1998). Hauck and colleagues completely safe; however,
(2003) reported that prone sleep-
ing is even more hazardous in
combination with a soft sleep sur-
many of the known risks
face. Infants are often placed in a
lateral position to breastfeed dur-
associated with infant sleep
ing mother-infant co-sleeping; in
these cases, mothers should be
environments are modifiable.
urged to reposition their infants on
their backs to sleep after feeding.
Prenatal and Passive Smoking
Smoking, especially prenatal smoking, has been identified
as risk factor for SIDS in several studies (Arnetad et al.,
2001; Blair, Fleming, Bensley, & Smith, 1996). In a recent
study, 90% of the SIDS infants who co-slept during their
last sleep had mothers who smoked prenatally (McGarvey
et al., 2003). The risks associated with tobacco are in-
creased if the infant co-sleeps with someone who smokes
(Scragg et al., 1998). If smoking cessation is impossible,
parents should be encouraged to reduce the infant’s expo-
sure as much as possible (Blair et al., 1996). According to
Scragg (1998), mothers who smoke should be advised
against co-sleeping with their infants.
Risks and Safety Measures Specific to
Co-Sleeping Environments
Unlike infant cribs, beds in which mothers sleep with their
infants lack the advantages of federal safety standards and
regulations. Parents can maximize safety by taking precau-
tions in both the physical environment and in the actions
taken by the co-sleeper.
January/February 2005
Bed Structure
Sleep environment can be hazardous if measures are not
taken to prevent wedging, entrapment, strangulation, or
falling. Nakamura et al. (1999) found that of 515 deaths
which occurred in adult beds, 394 were a result of entrap-
ment and wedging in the bed structure. In the same study,
92 infants died on waterbeds and 10 deaths occurred on
day beds. Although couches or other non-sleep-surface
deaths were not identified in this study, Blair (1999) lists
co-sleeping on couches as a particular hazard for infant
safety.
Parents can prevent these kinds of deaths by pulling the
bed away from the wall and nearby furniture, removing all
nearby clutter, and removing the head boards, foot boards,
and side rails (even those designed to prevent infants from
falling out of bed) as nine children in the Nakamura study
died on beds equipped with these devices (1999). Placing
the bed mattress directly on the floor can prevent injury
and death due to falling off the bed. All potential strangu-
lation devices including cords, ties, and long hair should be
tied back out of the infant’s reach. Parents should be
warned about the dangers of placing their infants on wa-
terbeds or on surfaces not designed for sleep (e.g., couch,
chair), as they generally are not firm and have high wedg-
ing and entrapment potential.
Identification and Number of Co-Sleepers
Thogmartin et al. (2001) found that 48% of co-sleeping in-
fants found dead were sleeping with someone other than
their mother, and 31% were sleeping with more than one
co-sleeper. The risk associated with co-sleeping outside the
mother-infant relationship is unclear.
Maternal Weight
Caroll-Pankhurst and Mortimer (2001) demonstrated that
sudden unexpected death in infancy occurred at a younger
age in co-sleeping infants compared to lone sleeping in-
fants, and that death was more common when the mother
was large (
79.5 kg or 175 lbs) and the infant was very
young. The authors conclude that a percentage of these
deaths were probably a result of overlaying. Because the
authors did not control for many co-variables, it is not
known whether the increased maternal weight increased
MCN 35
 Nurses can support parental decisions
about infant sleep environments by
providing nonjudgmental evidence-
based information and educating
parents about how to maximize the
safety of any sleep environment.
the risk of infant death as a direct result of smothering, or
whether maternal size was only a risk when accompanied
by another risk factor.
Although McGarvey et al. (2003) did not measure ma-
ternal weight in their research, they did demonstrate an in-
creased risk to infants 20 weeks of age, but no significant
risk to co-sleeping infants
20 weeks of age. Similarly,
Carpenter et al. (2004), identified that the risk associated
with co-sleeping was only significant until the infant was 8
weeks of age.
Co-sleeper’s Ability to Respond
Drugs (narcotics, sedatives, anesthetics, and depressants),
exhaustion, and some sleep disorders are factors that inter-
fere with a caregiver’s ability to acknowledge and respond
to an infant sleeping close by on the same sleep surface. In
a study by Gressner, Ives, & Perham-Hester (2001),
parental drug use was common among infants who died of
SIDS (alcohol use- 29%, illicit substances 15%). In the
same study, 94% of SIDS deaths occurred in association
with parental drug use among Alaskan native people, of
which 66% involved alcohol or elicit drugs. In another
study, maternal consumption of more than three alcoholic
drinks in 24 hours prior to co-sleeping was associated with
SIDS when the mother-infant dyad shared a sleep surface
for the entire night (Carpenter et al., 2004).
The impact of drug use on the incidence of sudden un-
expected death in infancy is difficult to evaluate as it is of-
ten dependent on self-report. The stigma, guilt, and fear of
legal repercussions associated with drug use and its contri-
bution to an infant’s death may interfere with honest re-
porting. Despite the difficulties, it is widely accepted that
drugs contribute to co-sleeping deaths. Co-sleepers who are
affected by a substance or condition that could affect their
arousability or ability to respond appropriately to their in-
fant should refrain from co-sleeping.
Routine Use of a Soother (Pacifier)
Several studies have demonstrated that fewer infants die in
their sleep while using soothers (Arnestead et al., 2001;
Carpenter et al., 2004; Hauk et al., 2003). McGarvey et al.
(2003) suggest that the absence of the soother in infants
who routinely use soothers puts them at risk for SIDS. This
theory is deserving of further inquiry.
36 VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1
Conclusion
Despite all the research in the literature, little is actually
known about the interactions that occur between mothers
and their infants when they sleep in close proximity. Even
less is known about how these interactions affect infant
safety, physiology, and psychology. Whether infants are
safer in bed with their mothers or alone in a crib remains
an open question. It is doubtful that longitudinal prospec-
tive randomized studies will be conducted on this topic;
thus, conclusive answers are unlikely to be forthcoming.
Therefore, nurses should read the literature, synthesize the
findings, and then advise parents accordingly. There is no
“right answer” to the question of whether co-sleeping for
mothers and infants is safe. Helping mothers to establish
safe sleeping environments no matter their decision in this
regard is a vital nursing function. ✜
Heather M. Mesich is a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner,
Meno-Ya-Win Health Centre. She can be reached via e-
mail at bradmesich@fcicanada.net.
References
Anderson, J. E. (2000). Co-sleeping: Can we ever put the issue to rest?
Contemporary Pediatrics, 17(6), 98-121.
Arnestad, M., Andersen, M., Vege, A., & Rognum, T. O. (2001). Changes in
the epidemiological pattern of sudden infant death syndrome in
southeast Norway, 1984-1998: Implications for future prevention and
research. Archives of Diseases in Childhood, 85(2), 108.
Beal, S. M., & Byard, R. W. (2000). Sudden infant death syndrome in
South Australia 1968-97. Part 3: Is bed sharing safe for infants? Jour-
nal of Paediatric Child Health, 36, 552-554.
Blair, P. S. (1999). Babies sleeping with parents: Case-control study of fac-
tors influencing the risk of the sudden infant death syndrome. British
Medical Journal, 319(7223), 1457-1461.
Blair, P. S., Fleming, P. J., Bensley, D., & Smith, I. (1996). Smoking and the sud-
den infant death syndrome. British Medical Journal, 313(7051), 195-198.
Brooke, H., Gibson, A., Tappin, D., & Brown, H. (1997). Case-control study
of sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland, 1992-1995. British Med-
ical Journal, 314, 1516-1520.
Buckley, P., Rigda, R. S., Mundy, L., & McMillen, I. C. (2002). Interaction
between bed sharing and other sleep environments during the first
six months of life. Early Human Development, 66, 123-132.
Carelton, J. N., Donoghue, A. M., & Porter, W. K.AQiv (1998). Mechanical
model testing of rebreathing potential in infant bedding materials.
Archives of Disease in Childhood, 78(4), 323.
Carpenter, R. G., Irgens, L. M., Blair, P. S., & England, P. D. (2004). Sudden
unexplained infant death in 20 regions in Europe: Case control study.
The Lancet, 363(9404), 185.
Carroll-Pankhurst, C., & Mortimer, E. A. (2001). Sudden infant death syn-
drome, bedsharing, parental weight, and age at death. Pediatrics,
107(3), 530-536.
January/February 2005
Collins, K. A. (2001). Death by overlaying and wedging: A 15-year retro-
spective study. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and
Pathology, 22(2), 155-159.
Drago, D. A., & Dannenberg, A. L. (1999). Infant mechanical suffocation
deaths in the United States, 1980-1997. Pediatrics, 103(5), 59.
Gessner , B. D., Ives, G. C., & Perham-Hester, K. A. (2001). Association be-
tween Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and prone sleep position, bed
sharing, and sleeping outside and infant crib. Pediatrics, 108(4), 923-927.
Guntheroth, W. G., Spiers, P. S. (2001). Thermal stress in sudden infant
death: Is there an ambiguity with the rebreathing hypothesis? Pedi-
atrics, 107(4), 693-698.
Hauck, F. R., Herman, S. M., Donovan, M., & Iyasu, S. (2003). Sleep envi-
ronment and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome in an urban
population: The Chicago infant mortality study. Pediatrics, 111(5), 1207.
Horne, R. S., Parslow, P. M., Ferens, D., Watts, A. M., Adamson, T. M., &
Harding, R. (2004). Comparison of evoked arousability in breast and
formula fed infants. Archives of Diseases in Children, 89(1), 22-25.
Hunsley, M., & Thoman, E. B. (2001). The sleep of co-sleeping infants
when they are not co-sleeping: Evidence that co-sleeping is stressful.
Developmental Psychobiology, 40, 14-22.
Kattwinkel, J., Brooks, J. G., Keenan, M. E., & Malloy, M. (20 0 0).
Changing Concepts of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Implications
for infant sleeping environment and sleep position. Pediatrics, 105(3),
650-656.
Kemp, J. S., Unger, B., Wilkins, D., Psara, R. M., Ledbetter, T. L., Graham,
M. A., et al. (2000). Unsafe sleep practices and an analysis of bedshar-
ing among infants dying suddenly and unexpectedly: Results of a
four-year, population-based, death-scene investigation study of sud-
den infant death syndrome and related death. Pediatrics, 106(3), 41.
Klonoff-Cohen, H., & Edelstein, S. L. (1995). Bed sharing and the sudden
infant death syndrome. British Medical Journal, 311(7015), 1269.
McGarvey, C., McDonnell, M., Chong, A., O’Regan, M., & Matthews, T.
(2003). Factors relating to the infant’s last sleep environment in sud-
den infant death syndrome in the Republic of Ireland. Archives of Dis-
eases in Childhood, 88(12), 1058-1072.
McKenna, J. J., Mosko, S. S., & Richard, C. A. (1997). Bedsharing pro-
motes breastfeeding. Pediatrics, 100(2), 214-220.
Mosko, S., Richard, C., & McKenna, J. (1997). Infant arousals during
mother-infant bed sharing: Implications for infant sleep and sudden
infant death syndrome research. Pediatrics, 100(5), 841-849.
Mosko, S., Richard, C., McKenna, J., Drummond, S., & Mukai, D. (1997).
Maternal proximity and infant CO2 environments during bedsharing
and possible implications for SIDS research. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, 103, 315-328.
Nakamura, S., Wind, M., & Danello, M. A. (1999). Review of hazards asso-
ciated with children placed in adult beds. Archives of Pediatrics &
Adolescent Medicine, 153(10), 1019.
Person, T. L. A., Lavezzi, W. A., & Wolf, B. C. (2002). Cosleeping and sud-
den unexpected death in infancy. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory
Medicine, 126(3), 343.
Polit, D., Beck, C. T., & Hungler, B. P. (2001). Essentials of Nursing Research
(5th Ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
Pollard, K., Flemming, P., Young, J, Sawczenko, A., & Blair, P. (1999). Night-
time non-nutritive sucking in infants aged 1 to 5 months: Relationship
with infant state, breastfeeding, and bed-sharing versus room-shar-
ing. Early Human Development, 56, 185-204.
Richard, C. A., Mosko, S. S., & McKenna, J. J. (1998). Apnea and periodic
breathing in bed-sharing and solitary sleeping infants. Journal of Ap-
plied Physiology, 84(4), 1374-1380.
Scheers, N. J., Dayton, C. M., Kemp, J. S. (1988). Sudden infant death
with external airways covered: Case-comparison study of 206 deaths
in the United States. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine,
152(6), 540.
Scheers, N. J., Rutherford, G. W., & Kemp, J. S. (2003). Where should infants
sleep? A comparison of risk for suffocation of infants sleeping in cribs,
adult beds, and other sleeping locations. Pediatrics, 112(4), 883-889.
Scragg, K. R., & Mitchell, E. A. (1998). Side sleeping position and bed
sharing in the sudden infant death syndrome. Annual Medical Re-
view, 30, 345-349.
Scragg, R. K. R., Mitchell, E. A., Stewart, A. W., Ford, R. P. K., Taylor, B. J.,
Hassall, I. B., et al. (1996). Infant room-sharing and prone sleeping po-
sition in sudden infant death syndrome. The Lancet, 347(8993), 7-12.
Thogmartin, J. R., Siebert, C. F., & Pellan, W. A. (2001). Sleep position and
bed- sharing in sudden infant deaths: An examination of autopsy
findings. The Journal of Pediatrics, 138, 212-217.
Weimer, S. M., Dise, T. L., Evers, P. B., & Oritz, M. A. (2002). Prevalence,
predictors, and attitudes toward cosleeping in an urban pediatric cen-
ter. Clinical Pediatrics, 41(6), 433-438.
Willinger, M., Ko, C., Hoffman, H. J., Kessler, R. C., & Corwin, M. J. (2003).
Trends in infant bed sharing in the United States, 1993-2000: The na-
tional infant sleep position study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, 157(1), 43-49.

MCN thanks the following reviewers who reviewed manuscripts during 2004.
Their volunteer work helps to make MCN the quality journal that it is.
Ament, Lynette, PhD, CNM, RN
Badr, Lina Kurdahi, DNSc, RN, CPNP, FAAN
Barnes, Joanne, MS, RNC
Barron, Mary Lee, MSN, RN-CS, FNP, NFPNP
Baxter, Carol, MSN, RN, CNS
Beal, Judy A, DNSc, PNP, RN
Bean, Margaret R, MS, RN
Beck, Cheryl T, DNSc, CNM, FAAN
Bernaix, Laura W, PhD, RN
Boyd, Carol J, PhD, RN, FAAN
Callister, Lynn Clark, PhD, RN, FAAN
Capitulo, Katie, DNSc, RN, FACCE
Corrarino, Jane E, MS, RN
Davis, Linda, MSN, RN
Dowling, Donna A, PhD, RN
Driscoll, Jeanne Watson, PhD, APRN
Dumas, Louise, PhD, RN
Eells, Patricia L, MS, RN, CCRN, CPNP
Ellett, Marsha L, DNS, RN
Evans, Teresa, MS, RNC
Faulkner, Melissa Spezia, DSN, RN
Fowles, Eileen, PhD, RNC
Gallo, Agatha, PhD, RN, CPNP, FAAN
Gemma, Penelope Buschman, MS, RN, CS, FAAN
Gibbons, Cynthia, PhD, RN
Gleeson, Roslyn M, MSN, CNS, RN
Goodrich, Sue Ellen, MSN, RN, C
Gordin, Peggy C, MS, RN,C, FAAN
Graf, Elaine R, PhD, RN, CS, PNP
Gross, Ronda Pomerantz, MSN, RN
Haley, Jayne, MS, RNC
Hart, Marcella A, PhD, RNC
Hayman, Laura, PhD, RN, FAAN
Heaman, Maureen, PhD, RN
Hobbins, Debra, MSN, APRN, NP
Horodynski, Mildred A, PhD, RNC
Huddleston, Kathi, MSN, CNS, RN
Hutchinson, Sharon, MN, RN
James, Dotty, PhD, RN
Jenkins, Ruth L, PhD, RN
Johnson, Merrilyn O, PhD, CNM, CNS, RN
Kavanaugh, Karen, PhD, RN
Kavinsky, Beth, MSNC, RNC, IBCLC
Kenner, Carole, DNS, RNC, FAAN
Knowles, Susan Griffits, BSN, RNC, CCAP
Kowalski, Karren, PhD, RN, FAAN
Krowchuk, Heidi vonKoss, PhD, RN, CS, FAAN
Lewis, Judith, PhD, NP, RN, FAAN
Lindberg, Claire E, PhD, RN, CNS, NPC
Lindeke, Linda L, PhD, CNP, RN
Lipman, Terri, PhD, CRNP, FAAN
Lockridge, Terri, MS, RNC
Logsdon, Cynthia M, DNS, ARNP
Lowenkron, Ann Herman, DNS, RN
Mandleco, Barbara, PhD, RN
Mattson, Susan, PhD, RNC, FAAN
McCartney, Patricia R, PhD, RNC, FAAN
Mendler, Victoria M, MSN, RNC, WHNP
Meng, Anne, MN, CPNP, RNC
Moos, Merry-K, MPH, FNP, FAAN
Morin, Karen H, DSN, RN
Patrick, Thelma E, PhD, RN
Patterson, Ellen T, DNS, RN
Pelzer, Gay D, JD, RN
Pugh, Linda, PhD, RNC, FAAN
Raines, Deborah A, PhD, RNC
Rentschler, Dorothy, PhD, RN
Roberts, Joyce, PhD, RN, CNM, FACNM, FAAN
Rohan, Annie J, MSN, RNC, NNP/CPNP
Schiffman, Rachel, PhD, RN, FAAN
Schmidt, Cindy, PhD, RN
Semenic, Sonia, PhD(c), RN, IBCLC
Sharp, Kathleen T, MSN, RNC, CRNP
Sharts-Hopko, Nancy C, PhD, RN, FAAN
Simpson, Kathleen R, PhD, RNC, FAAN
Slusher, Ida L, DSN, RN
Sosa, Mary Ellen Burke, MS, RNC
Spear, Hila, PhD, RN, IBCLC
Sterling, Yvonne M, DNSc, RN
Stringer, Marilyn, PhD, CRNP, RDMS
Strodtbeck, Frances, DNS, RN, NNP, FAAN
Thompson, Joyce, DrPH, CNM, FACNM, FAAN
Thoyre, Suzanne M, PhD, RN
Tiedje, Linda Beth, PhD, RN, FAAN
Tiller, Cecilia, DNS, WHNP, RNC
Tillett, Jackie, ND, CNM, RN
Travis, Nancy, BS, RN, C
Troy, Nancy Weiland, PhD, RN
Vincent, Janice L, DSN, RN
Wambach, Karen A, PhD, RN
Wheeler, Sara R, DNS, RNCS, LCPC