NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Benefits and harms of bed sharing
Evidence review M
NICE Guideline, No. 194
National Guideline Alliance (UK).
Benefits and harms of bed sharing
Review question
What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping?
Introduction
Parents sharing a bed with their infants is common practice throughout the world and in England. Sometimes it is a choice and at other times may happen when parents are fatigued after evening or night time feeds. The aim of this review is to find out what are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping or sharing a bed with a baby.
Summary of the protocol
Please see Table 1 for a revised summary of the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) characteristics of this review.
Table 1
Summary of the protocol (PICO table).
For further details see the review protocol in appendix A.
Methods and process
This evidence review was developed using the methods and process described in Developing NICE guidelines: the manual 2014. Methods specific to this review question are described in the review protocol in appendix A.
Declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE’s 2014 conflicts of interest policy until March 2018. From April 2018 until June 2019, declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE’s 2018 conflicts of interest policy. From July 2019 onwards, the declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE’s 2019 conflicts of interest policy. Those interests declared before July 2019 were reclassified according to NICE’s 2019 conflicts of interest policy (see Register of Interests).
Clinical evidence
Included studies
Twelve studies were included in this review: 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (Ball 2006; Ball 2011; Moon 2017), 1 RCT follow-up study (Ball 2016), 7 observational studies (Ball 2012; Blair 2010; Brenner 2003; Broussard 2012; Luijk 2013; McCoy 2004; Smith 2016) and 1 observational follow-up study (Mileva-Seitz 2016).
Eleven studies (Ball 2011; Ball 2012; Ball 2016; Blair 2010; Brenner 2003; Broussard 2012; Luijk 2013; McCoy 2004; Mileva-Seitz 2016; Smith 2016) compared shared sleep surface to no shared sleep surface. One study (Ball 206) was a 3-way comparison of shared sleep surface (bed sharing), another shared sleep surface (side-car crib), and no shared sleep surface (stand-alone bassinette).
While RCT evidence was initially prioritised, the RCT evidence did not include data on all critical outcomes and was thus considered an insufficient basis on which to draft recommendations in this area, so observational studies were also used to inform decision making.
All RCTs were designed to select healthy women at low medical risk, who were expected to have a singleton, healthy, term baby and were intending to breastfeed. One RCT (Ball 2006) only recruited first-time mothers who delivered vaginally whereas the other RCTs (Ball 2011; Ball 2016; Moon 2017) were not similarly restricted. All observational studies included women who were due to give birth, only 2 of the studies (Brenner 2003; Broussard 2012) restricted the inclusion criteria to singleton babies.
In 5 of the observational studies (Ball 2012; Brenner 2003; Broussard 2012; Luijk 2013; McCoy 2004) bed sharing (the exposure of interest for this review) was considered to be the outcome and for example breastfeeding (the outcome of interest for this review) to be the exposure. That is, the relationship between the two variables (exposure and outcome) were analysed opposite to that pre-defined in the protocol for this review. This evidence was still included as it represented an association between the two variables of interest for this review.
No meta-analysis was carried out for studies comparing a shared sleep surface to no shared sleep surface, as studies differed in design, not all outcomes were collected at the same time point, and the exposure and outcome were inverse in some studies as explained previously.
The included studies are summarised in Table 2.
See the literature search strategy in appendix B and also the study selection flow chart in appendix C.
Excluded studies
Studies not included in this review with reasons for their exclusion are provided in appendix K.
Summary of clinical studies included in the evidence review
Summaries of the studies that were included in this review are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Summary of clinical studies included in the evidence review.
See the full evidence tables in appendix D and the forest plots in appendix E.
Quality assessment of clinical studies included in the evidence review
See clinical evidence profiles in appendix F.
Economic evidence
Included studies
A single economic search was undertaken for all topics included in the scope of this guideline but no economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question. See the literature search strategy in appendix B and economic study selection flow chart in appendix G.
Excluded studies
No economic studies were reviewed at full text and excluded from this review.
Economic model
No economic modelling was conducted for this review question because the committee agreed that other topics were higher priorities for economic evaluation.
Evidence statements
Clinical evidence statements
Comparison 1: Shared sleep surface versus no shared sleep surface
Critical outcomes
Infant mortality within the first year
- No evidence was identified for this outcome.
Proportion of women breastfeeding (exclusively) at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 6 months
RCTs
- Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=870) showed no clinically important difference in the proportion of women breastfeeding exclusively at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months between women who bed shared compared to those who did not.
- Very low quality evidence from a follow-up study of an RCT (N=486) showed a clinically important increase in the proportion of women breastfeeding exclusively at 6 weeks and 12 weeks between women who often bed shared compared to those who rarely bed shared, but no clinically important difference at 6 months.
Observational studies
There was limited observational evidence available for this critical outcome at the time points stated in the protocol. However, evidence was available for proportion of women breastfeeding (exclusively) in the past 2 weeks and at 5-6 months.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective cohort study (N=2,838) showed a clinically important increase in the proportion of women breastfeeding exclusively in the past 2 weeks between women bed sharing whole or part of the night versus room sharing without bed sharing.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=528) that was assessed as an observational study showed a clinically important increase in the proportion of women breastfeeding exclusively at 5-6 months between women bed sharing versus room sharing without bed sharing.
Proportion of women breastfeeding (partially) at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 6 months
RCTs
- Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=870) showed no clinically important difference in the proportion of women breastfeeding partially at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months between women who bed shared compared to those who did not.
- Very low quality evidence from a follow-up study of an RCT (N=486) showed a clinically important increase in the proportion of women breastfeeding partially at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months between women who often bed shared compared to those who rarely bed shared.
Observational studies
There was limited observational evidence available for this critical outcome at the time points stated in the protocol. However, evidence was available for proportion of women breastfeeding (partially) in the past 2 weeks and at 5-6 months.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective cohort study (N=2,838) showed a clinically important increase in the proportion of women breastfeeding partially in the past 2 weeks between women bed sharing whole or part of the night versus room sharing without bed sharing.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=528) that was assessed as an observational study showed no clinically important difference in the proportion of women breastfeeding partially at 5-6 months between women bed sharing versus room sharing without bed sharing.
Proportion of women breastfeeding (any) at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 6 months
Observational studies
There was limited observational evidence available for this critical outcome at the time points stated in the protocol. However, evidence was available for proportion of women breastfeeding (any) at 12 months.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective population based cohort study (N=7,447) showed a clinically important increase in the proportion of women breastfeeding at 12 months between women who late bed shared defined as bed sharing after the first year, early bed shared defined as bed sharing only in the first year, and constant bed shared defined as bed sharing throughout 4 years compared to those who did not.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective population based cohort study (N=1,510) showed a clinically important increase in frequent bed sharing between women breastfeeding for 4 weeks or less compared women not breastfeeding.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective population based cohort study (n=2,133) showed a clinically important increase in frequent bed sharing between women breastfeeding for more than 4 weeks compared to women not breastfeeding.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective cohort study (N=143) showed no clinically important difference in regular bed sharing between women breastfeeding for 1 to less than 8 weeks compared to women not breastfeeding or breastfed for less than 1 week.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective cohort study (N=143) showed a clinically important increase in regular bed sharing between women breastfeeding for 8 weeks or more compared to women not breastfeeding.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective population based cohort study (N=816) showed a clinically important increase in bed sharing between women breastfeeding at 2 months compared to women not breastfeeding.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective multicentre cohort study (N=189) showed a clinically important increase in bed sharing at 3 months between women breastfeeding compared to women not breastfeeding.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective multicentre cohort study (N=161) showed a clinically important increase in bed sharing at 6 months between women breastfeeding compared to women not breastfeeding.
Emotional attachment between parent and baby when the baby is 12 to 18 months of age
Observational studies
- Very low quality evidence from 1 follow-up study of a cohort study (N=552) showed a clinically important difference in attachment security (secure versus insecure attachment) among solitary sleeping infants at 14 months, with greater odds that insecurely attached infants would be solitary sleepers.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 follow-up study of a cohort study (N=552) showed a clinically important difference in attachment security (disorganised versus non-disorganised attachment) among solitary sleeping infants at 14 months, with greater odds that disorganised infants would be solitary sleepers.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 follow-up study of a cohort study (N=552) showed a clinically important difference in attachment security (secure versus insecure attachment) among infants who sometimes bed shared at 14 months, with greater odds that secure infants sometimes bed shared, but no clinically important difference among infants who frequently bed shared.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 follow-up study of a cohort study (N=552) showed no clinically important difference in attachment security (disorganised versus non-disorganised) among infants who sometimes or frequently bed shared at 14 months.
Important outcomes
Mother’s satisfaction with own sleep in the first 8 weeks after the birth
No evidence was identified for this outcome.
Serious illness in the baby
RCTs
- Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=931) showed no clinically important difference in adverse events (not defined) between babies whose mothers bed shared compared to those who did not.
Parental emotional health and wellbeing in the first 8 weeks after the birth
Observational studies
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective birth cohort study (N=394) showed a clinically important increase in usual bed sharing at ages 3 to 7 months between women with higher depression scores compared to those with lower depression scores.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective population based cohort study (N=816) showed no clinically important difference in bed sharing at 2 months between women with depression and women without depression.
- Very low quality evidence from 1 prospective population based cohort study (N=2,791) showed a clinically important increase in usual bed sharing between women with partner-associated stress compared to those without partner-associated stress.
Parental satisfaction
RCTs
- Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=61) showed no clinically important difference in maternal satisfaction (scale not reported) between women who bed shared compared to those who did not.
Comparison 2: Shared sleep surface versus another shared sleep surface
Critical outcomes
Infant mortality within the first year
No evidence was identified for this outcome.
Proportion of women breastfeeding (exclusively or partially) at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 6 months
No evidence was identified for this outcome.
Emotional attachment between parent and baby when the baby is 12 to 18 months of age
No evidence was identified for this outcome.
Important outcomes
Mother’s satisfaction with own sleep in the first 8 weeks after the birth
No evidence was identified for this outcome.
Serious illness in the baby
- Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=41) showed no clinically important difference in adverse events (not defined) between babies whose mothers bed shared compared to those who slept in a side-car crib.
Parental emotional health and wellbeing in the first 8 weeks after the birth
No evidence was identified for this outcome.
Parental satisfaction
- Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=41) showed no clinically important difference in maternal satisfaction (scale not reported) between women who shared their bed with their baby compared to those who used a side-car crib.
Economic evidence statements
No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.
The committee’s discussion of the evidence
Interpreting the evidence
The outcomes that matter most
Infant mortality within the first year, proportion of women breastfeeding (exclusively or partially) at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months after birth, and emotional attachment between parent and baby when the baby is 12 to 18 months of age were considered critical outcomes. Mother’s satisfaction with own sleep in the first 8 weeks after birth, serious illness in the baby, parental emotional health and wellbeing in the first 8 weeks after the birth, and parental satisfaction were considered important outcomes.
Infant mortality within the first year was rated a critical outcome because bed sharing has been associated with increased rates of sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) and the committee wanted to see if bed sharing would lead to increased infant mortality. The proportion of women breastfeeding and emotional attachment between parent and baby were prioritised as critical outcomes because proponents of bed sharing refer to its ability to facilitate increased breastfeeding and the committee were interested in whether this could impact on breastfeeding outcomes.
Mother’s satisfaction with own sleep and parental emotional health and wellbeing in the first 8 weeks after birth and parental satisfaction were prioritised as important outcomes, because mental health problems are an important issue in the postnatal period and the committee wanted to see if sleeping arrangements could impact on this. Serious illness in the baby was also considered an important outcome.
There was evidence on the proportion of women breastfeeding (critical outcome) and serious illness in the baby and parental satisfaction (important outcomes).
There was no evidence on infant mortality within the first year (critical outcome) for any of the comparisons. In addition, there was no RCT evidence on emotional attachment between parent and baby (critical outcome) or mother’s satisfaction with own sleep in the first 8 weeks after the birth or parental emotional health and wellbeing (important outcomes) for any of the comparisons. However, evidence was available from observational studies on emotional attachment between parent and baby at 14 months, and parental emotional health and wellbeing for the comparison between shared sleep surface versus no shared sleep surface.
For the majority of outcomes where evidence was identified, there wasn’t a significant amount of evidence on the pre-specified time points in the protocol, therefore there was some flexibility with the time points of these outcomes.
The quality of the evidence
RCTs
The quality of the RCT evidence was very low. The risk of bias was high in every RCT. In all trials there was insufficient information to assess whether random sequence generation and allocation concealment was adequate. None of the participants could be blinded to their intervention in any of the trials, which could have resulted in performance bias. Additionally, blinding of outcome assessors was either not possible or not done except in 1 trial (Ball 2006), potentially leading to detection bias in outcome assessment for the subjective outcomes, such as maternal satisfaction. Some studies reported substantial non-compliance and differential cross-over between intervention and control groups.
One RCT (Moon 2017) was treated as providing observational data due to the study originally being designed to compare the effectiveness of counselling to reduce bed sharing on breastfeeding rates so participants were not randomised directly into bed sharing versus no bed sharing.
All of the studies were downgraded for indirectness due to it being unknown whether co-sleeping with the baby on a shared sleep surface took place within the first 8 weeks after birth.
Some breastfeeding outcomes were downgraded due to imprecision as the 95% confidence intervals crossed the null effects and/or there were fewer than 300 events in the study. Other outcomes were downgraded due to imprecision from the 95% confidence intervals crossing 1 or both of the values of minimally important differences (MIDs), which in turn is related to sample size.
Observational studies
The quality of evidence from observational studies was very low. The risk of bias was very high in all studies due to the potential for confounding, missing data, and use of self-report measures.
Five of the studies (Ball 2012; Brenner 2003; Broussard 2012; Luijk 2013; McCoy 2004) were downgraded for indirectness due to the data reported in the papers deviating from the protocol, that is the exposures and outcomes stated in the protocol were presented the opposite way around in the papers.
Some evidence for breastfeeding outcomes were downgraded due to imprecision as the 95% confidence intervals crossed the null effects and/or there were fewer than 300 events in the study. Other outcomes were downgraded due to imprecision from the 95% confidence intervals crossing 1 or both of the values of minimally important differences (MIDs) for dichotomous outcomes.
There was some uncertainty around the confidence in the outcomes of 1 study (Mileva-Seitz 2016), as there was no dose-response gradient between the amount of co-sleeping and emotional attachment between the parent and baby.
One study (Blair 2010) used longitudinal latent class analysis as opposed to the cluster analysis approach adopted in other observational studies. A limitation of the longitudinal latent class analysis is fewer subjects providing data for the larger number of observational time points (latent classes). Nonetheless, the large population of the study ensured that there was enough data to differentiate between the different groupings.
Benefits and harms
The committee agreed that on the basis of the evidence presented, which showed no greater risk of harm when parents shared a bed with their baby compared to not bed sharing, healthcare professionals should not routinely advise parents against sharing a bed with their baby. They agreed about the importance of parental choice in relation to bed sharing with their baby assuming they follow safe practices for bed sharing. The committee used the data from evidence review N on co-sleeping risk factors in relation to SUDI and their own expert knowledge, to recommend advice on safer practices for bed sharing that practitioners should provide to parents and circumstances when bed sharing might not be safe and should be strongly advised against.
A significant body of evidence indicated a higher association between mothers who share a bed with their baby and those who continue to breastfeed (any, exclusively, and partially) at various time points. However, although the studies showed close ties between breastfeeding and bed sharing the committee recognised that due to the interlinking relationship between the two in practice and the cross-sectional design of studies, it is difficult to infer causality. Furthermore, the majority of cross-sectional studies (Ball 2012, Broussard 2012, Luijk 2013, McCoy 2004) looked at breastfeeding as the exposure and bed sharing as the outcome, inverse to the protocol, assessing the exposure and outcome concurrently adds further uncertainty to causality. One study (Blair 2010) attempted to address this problem by assessing the data longitudinally. The analysis demonstrated that mothers who bed shared for the first year, after the first year, and throughout the first 4 years of the child’s life all had higher rates of breastfeeding at 12 months. Although causality cannot be established from the evidence, the committee agreed, on the basis of their own expert knowledge that if healthcare professionals advise parents not to share a bed with their baby, this would most likely lead to less successful or shorter breastfeeding.
One study (Mileva-Seitz 2016) demonstrated an association between higher rate of insecure and disorganised infants at 14 months and no bed sharing. Similar to the association between breastfeeding and bed sharing, the committee agreed that causality couldn’t be inferred for this association.
The committee discussed the association between higher depression scores and partner-associated stress with mother’s who share a bed with their baby. Again, the studies (Brenner 2003, Luijk 2013) looked at depression scores and partner-associated stress as the exposure and bed sharing as the outcome, inverse to the protocol. The committee further highlighted that it’s difficult to ascertain whether higher depression scores or partner-associated stress cause bed sharing or vice versa, thus no recommendations were made based on this association.
Cost effectiveness and resource use
No economic evidence is available for this review question. The committee agreed that identifying benefits and risks of bed sharing and offering relevant advice to parents is likely to improve outcomes for the babies and parents at a very small cost, associated with the health professionals’ time spent on offering advice. Given that some time is already spent offering relevant advice to parents in current practice, the resource implications of the recommendations were considered to be negligible.
Other factors the committee took into account
The committee noted during protocol development that certain subgroups of women may require special consideration due to their potential vulnerability:
- twins
- young women (19 years or under)
- women sleeping separately from a partner
- women with physical and cognitive disabilities
- women with severe mental health illness
- nature of the sleep surface, for example shared bed or sofa/armchair
- smoking, alcohol, drugs (prescribed or recreational)
- sleeping with other siblings
- intentional and unintentional co-sleeping
- co-sleeping all night, every night and co-sleeping some of the time.
References
Ball 2006
Ball, H. L., Ward-Platt, M. P., Heslop, E., Leech, S. J., Brown, K. A., Randomised trial of infant sleep location on the postnatal ward, Archives of Disease in Childhood, 91, 1005–1010, 2006 [PMC free article: PMC2083001] [PubMed: 16849364]Ball 2011
Ball, H. L., Ward-Platt, M. P., Howel, D., Russell, C., Randomised trial of sidecar crib use on breastfeeding duration (NECOT), Archives of Disease in Childhood, 96, 630–634, 2011 [PubMed: 21474481]Ball 2012
Ball, H. L., Moya, E., Fairley, L., Westman, J., Oddie, S., Wright, J., Bed- and sofa-sharing practices in a UK biethnic population, Pediatrics, 129, e673–e681, 2012 [PubMed: 22351888]Ball 2016
Ball, H. L., Howel, D., Bryant, A., Best, E., Russell, C., Ward-Platt, M., Bed-sharing by breastfeeding mothers: Who bed-shares and what is the relationship with breastfeeding duration?, Acta Paediatrica, International Journal of Paediatrics, 105, 628–634, 2016 [PubMed: 26848117]Blair 2010
Blair, P. S., Heron, J., Fleming, P. J., Relationship between bed sharing and breastfeeding: Longitudinal, population-based analysis, Pediatrics, 126, e1119–e1126, 2010 [PubMed: 20956410]Brenner 2003
Brenner, R. A., Simons-Morton, B. G., Bhaskar, B., Revenis, M., Das, A., Clemens, J. D., Infant-parent bed sharing in an inner-city population, Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 157, 33–39, 2003 [PubMed: 12517192]Broussard 2012
Broussard, D. L., Sappenfield, W. M., Goodman, D. A., The Black and White of infant back sleeping and infant bed sharing in Florida, 2004-2005, Maternal & Child Health Journal, 16, 713–24, 2012 [PubMed: 21416390]Luijk 2013
Luijk, M. P. C. M., Mileva-Seitz, V. R., Jansen, P. W., van, IJzendoorn M. H., Jaddoe, V. W. V., Raat, H., Hofman, A., Verhulst, F. C., Tiemeier, H., Ethnic differences in prevalence and determinants of mother-child bed-sharing in early childhood, Sleep Medicine, 14, 1092–1099, 2013 [PubMed: 23994270]McCoy 2004
McCoy, R. C., Hunt, C. E., Lesko, S. M., Vezina, R., Corwin, M. J., Willinger, M., Hoffman, H. J., Mitchell, A. A., Frequency of bed sharing and its relationship to breastfeeding, Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 25, 141–149, 2004 [PubMed: 15194897]Mileva-Seitz 2016
Mileva-Seitz, V. R., Luijk, M. P. C. M., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Jaddoe, V. W. V., Hofman, A., Verhulst, F. C., Tiemeier, H., Association between infant nighttime-sleep location and attachment security: No easy verdict, Infant Mental Health Journal, 37, 5–16, 2016 [PubMed: 26719041]Moon 2017
Moon, R. Y., Mathews, A., Joyner, B. L., Oden, R. P., He, J., McCarter, R., Impact of a Randomized Controlled Trial to Reduce Bedsharing on Breastfeeding Rates and Duration for African-American Infants, Journal of community health, 42, 707–715, 2017 [PMC free article: PMC7327503] [PubMed: 28064421]Smith 2016
Smith, L. A., Geller, N. L., Kellams, A. L., Colson, E. R., Rybin, D. V., Heeren, T., Corwin, M. J., Infant Sleep Location and Breastfeeding Practices in the United States, 2011-2014, Academic Pediatrics, 16, 540–549, 2016 [PMC free article: PMC6202582] [PubMed: 26851615]
Appendices
Appendix A. Review protocol
Review protocol for review question: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping? (PDF, 235K)
Appendix B. Literature search strategies
Literature search strategies for review question: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping? (PDF, 211K)
Appendix C. Clinical evidence study selection
Clinical study selection for: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping? (PDF, 159K)
Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables
Clinical evidence tables for review question: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping? (PDF, 584K)
Appendix E. Forest plots
Forest plots for review question: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping?
No meta-analysis was conducted for this review question and so there are no forest plots.
Appendix F. GRADE tables
GRADE tables for review question: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping? (PDF, 530K)
Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection
Economic evidence study selection for review question: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping? (PDF, 239K)
Appendix H. Economic evidence tables
Economic evidence tables for the review question: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping?
No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.
Appendix I. Economic evidence profiles
Economic evidence profiles for the review question: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping?
No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.
Appendix J. Economic analysis
Economic analysis for the review question: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping?
No economic analysis was conducted for this review question.
Appendix K. Excluded studies
Excluded studies for review question: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping?
Clinical studies
Download PDF (213K)
Economic studies
No economic evidence was identified for this review.
Appendix L. Research recommendations
Research recommendations for review question: What are the benefits and harms of co-sleeping?
No research recommendations were made for this review question.
Final
Evidence review underpinning recommendations 1.3.13 to 1.3.14
These evidence reviews were developed by the National Guideline Alliance, part of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Disclaimer: The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients or service users. The recommendations in this guideline are not mandatory and the guideline does not override the responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or their carer or guardian.
Local commissioners and/or providers have a responsibility to enable the guideline to be applied when individual health professionals and their patients or service users wish to use it. They should do so in the context of local and national priorities for funding and developing services, and in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.
NICE guidelines cover health and care in England. Decisions on how they apply in other UK countries are made by ministers in the Welsh Government, Scottish Government, and Northern Ireland Executive. All NICE guidance is subject to regular review and may be updated or withdrawn.
- Differences in infant and parent behaviors during routine bed sharing compared with cot sleeping in the home setting.[Pediatrics. 2006]Differences in infant and parent behaviors during routine bed sharing compared with cot sleeping in the home setting.Baddock SA, Galland BC, Bolton DP, Williams SM, Taylor BJ. Pediatrics. 2006 May; 117(5):1599-607.
- The prevalence and characteristics associated with parent-infant bed-sharing in England.[Arch Dis Child. 2004]The prevalence and characteristics associated with parent-infant bed-sharing in England.Blair PS, Ball HL. Arch Dis Child. 2004 Dec; 89(12):1106-10.
- Night-time non-nutritive sucking in infants aged 1 to 5 months: relationship with infant state, breastfeeding, and bed-sharing versus room-sharing.[Early Hum Dev. 1999]Night-time non-nutritive sucking in infants aged 1 to 5 months: relationship with infant state, breastfeeding, and bed-sharing versus room-sharing.Pollard K, Fleming P, Young J, Sawczenko A, Blair P. Early Hum Dev. 1999 Dec; 56(2-3):185-204.
- Review Co-sleeping, an ancient practice: issues of the past and present, and possibilities for the future.[Sleep Med Rev. 2006]Review Co-sleeping, an ancient practice: issues of the past and present, and possibilities for the future.Thoman EB. Sleep Med Rev. 2006 Dec; 10(6):407-17. Epub 2006 Nov 16.
- Review Parent-infant co-sleeping and the implications for sudden infant death syndrome.[Nurs Child Young People. 2017]Review Parent-infant co-sleeping and the implications for sudden infant death syndrome.Straw J, Jones P. Nurs Child Young People. 2017 Dec 5; 29(10):24-29.
- Benefits and harms of bed sharingBenefits and harms of bed sharing
- SAM-dependent methyltransferase [Mycobacterium tuberculosis variant bovis]SAM-dependent methyltransferase [Mycobacterium tuberculosis variant bovis]gi|1269718482|gb|PHO47691.1||gnl|WG P|B6F22_18415Protein
- histidine phosphatase family protein [Mycobacterium tuberculosis variant bovis]histidine phosphatase family protein [Mycobacterium tuberculosis variant bovis]gi|1269718473|gb|PHO47682.1||gnl|WG P|B6F22_18365Protein
- Mus musculus olfactory receptor MOR115-1 gene, complete cdsMus musculus olfactory receptor MOR115-1 gene, complete cdsgi|18479957|gb|AY073330.1|Nucleotide
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...