36 research outputs found

    Parents' knowledge and behaviour concerning sunning their babies; a cross-sectional, descriptive study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: For centuries, sunlight has been used for therapeutic purposes. Parents still sun their infants to treat neonatal jaundice, nappy rash or mostly to supply vitamin D for bone development as a consequence of health beliefs. In this study we aimed to assess knowledge and behaviour of parents about benefits of sunlight and sun protection. METHODS: In this study, parents attending to governmental primary healthcare units for their children's routine vaccinations, upon their informed consent, were consecutively enrolled during one month. Data were collected by a semi-structured questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean age of 118 enrolled parents and their babies were 27.9 ± 6.5 years and 8.3 ± 5.8 months, respectively. Most of the participants were mothers (93.2%), housewives (81.4%) with an educational level of ≄6 years (71.2%). Sunlight was considered beneficial for bone development (86.4%), diaper rash (5.9%) and neonatal jaundice (12.7%). In case of neonatal jaundice 72.0% of the participants reported that they would consult a physician. Most of the participants (82.2%) were sunning their babies outdoors. Nearly half (49.7%) of them got this information from medical staff. Fifty two percent of the parents were sunning their babies before 10–11 a.m. and/or after 3 p.m. Only 13.6% of parents reported using sunscreen for their babies, and the majority of them were using sun protecting factor ≄ 15. One forth of the sunscreen users was using sunscreen according to their physicians' advice. CONCLUSION: Most of the participants were aware of the benefits of sunlight; especially for bone development. However they were displaying inappropriate behaviour while sunning their babies for health reasons. More education should be given to parents about the danger of sunlight at primary health care units while advising to sun their babies, if any

    Infant skin-cleansing product versus water:a pilot randomized, assessor-blinded controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background The vulnerability of newborn babies' skin creates the potential for a number of skin problems. Despite this, there remains a dearth of good quality evidence to inform practice. Published studies comparing water with a skin-cleansing product have not provided adequate data to inform an adequately powered trial. Nor have they distinguished between babies with and without a predisposition to atopic eczema. We conducted a pilot study as a prequel to designing an optimum trial to investigate whether bathing with a specific cleansing product is superior to bathing with water alone. The aims were to produce baseline data which would inform decisions for the main trial design (i.e. population, primary outcome, sample size calculation) and to optimize the robustness of trial processes within the study setting. Methods 100 healthy, full term neonates aged <24 hours were randomly assigned to bathing with water and cotton wool (W) or with a cleaning product (CP). A minimum of bathing 3 times per week was advocated. Groups were stratified according to family history of atopic eczema. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum hydration and skin surface pH were measured within 24 hours of birth and at 4 and 8 weeks post birth. Measurements were taken on the thigh, forearm and abdomen. Women also completed questionnaires and diaries to record bathing practices and medical treatments. Results Forty nine babies were randomized to cleansing product, 51 to water. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the average TEWL measurement at each time point were: whole sample at baseline: 10.8 g/m2/h to 11.7 g/m2/h; CP group 4 weeks: 10.9 g/m2/h to 13.3 g/m2/h; 8 weeks: 11.4 g/m2/h to 12.9 g/m2/h; W group 4 weeks:10.9 g/m2/h to 12.2 g/m2/h; 8 weeks: 11.4 g/m2/h to 12.9 g/m2/h. Conclusion This pilot study provided valuable baseline data and important information on trial processes. The decision to proceed with a superiority trial, for example, was inconsistent with our data; therefore a non-inferiority trial is recommended
    corecore