Search

Sleep disorders are prevalent in children with Down Syndrome (DS). However, sleep treatment is not always readily accessed by this group. This study aims to understand families' experiences of having a child with DS and sleep difficulties, and in particular, their healthcare experiences, with the goal of informing practice improvements. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 34 parents (fathers n = 4 and mothers n = 30) with open-ended questions about parents' experiences of sleep, family dynamics, and healthcare. We operationalized a reflexive Thematic Analysis. Parents normalized their experiences of having a child with DS and sleep problems. Parents acknowledged that sleep disruption has adverse and pervasive impacts on their wellbeing and family dynamics, but also found this difficult to identify as a health problem. They accepted sleep difficulties as a regular part of bringing up any child, particularly one with a disability. When they did seek treatment for their child's sleep difficulties, parents often reported encountering insensitive and inadequate care and described that, at times, healthcare professionals also normalized children's sleep difficulties, resulting in sub-optimal treatment. This included at times failure to refer to tertiary sleep medicine services when required. Parents' and healthcare professionals' normalization of sleeping difficulties denies that they are both deleterious and modifiable. Practice implications include raising healthcare professionals' awareness of the importance of proactively addressing sleep, with sensitivity to families' normalization strategies, recognizing that families may require prompting to report concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Families of children with Down syndrome experience complex lives and needs, yet the few existing studies on these families are written in conventional academic prose that is not optimal for knowledge translation beyond academia, particularly for busy healthcare professionals. In this paper, we Depart Radically in Academic Writing (DRAW) (Mackinlay, 2022) and present data poetry and two case studies that draw upon semi-structured interviews with mothers, fathers, and siblings, who were interviewed separately about their experiences of having a child/sibling with Down syndrome. We introduce our interdisciplinary team that includes academics and clinicians to contextualise our focus on research translation. We demonstrate that writing with creative criticality (i.e. 'DRAWing') contributes an embodied and affective understanding of research participants' stories, which is largely lacking in the academic literature on families of children with Down syndrome and the sociology of health and illness field more broadly. Moreover, DRAWing can impact audiences emotionally as well as intellectually (Richardson, 2003, p. 924), which has important knowledge translation implications for both healthcare professionals and these families. DRAWing can capture healthcare professionals' attention, prompting them to critically reflect on their practices and opportunities for improving care and treatment for these families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Qualitative researchers can discard data that are unsaturated or unrelated to research questions, but what do we do when these data affect us, or 'haunt' us, 'long after collecting "it"' (Taylor 2013, 691)? In this paper, we draw upon Sara Ahmed to guide our engagement with 'discarded data': young children's gendered accounts of violence that unexpectedly arose during interviews about rest-time and relaxation in childcare. We show what it feels like to be affected by children's accounts throughout the non-linear and zig-zagged 'data analysis' processes. Applying Ahmed's conceptualisation of power as 'directionality', we critique the power of qualitative research conventions to define our focus as researchers and pay attention to what children raise: how they are directed towards gendered futures. We find that, in children's accounts of violence, boys have more agency than girls as they participate in – and respond to – violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The international quality-improvement agenda for Early Childhood Education (ECE) directs attention to maximising children's learning experiences. Yet routines, and particularly those relating to sleep-rest provision, are not well conceptualised as learning opportunities. Often children who no longer sleep in the daytime are required to lie down without alternative activity. Educator discourse frames these practices as 'teaching self-regulation', yet these experiences afford little opportunity for child-directed learning, and both observational and cortisol studies suggest the potential for negative learning experiences. Prior studies have examined children's emotional response and identified sleep-rest time as disliked, but have not examined children's accounts of learning. In this study, we analyse accounts of learning from 54 children (mean age = 56 months). Collectively, the children identified three learnings. Most children learned that adults regulate sleep-rest opportunities through instruction, reward, punishment and priveledge. Some children reported learning coping strategies including imagination and subversion. A rare few identitfied learning to self-regulate. The findings identify a discrepancy between policy aspiration and educator intent, that foreground self-regulation and the de facto lessons children draw from their sleep-rest experiences. Our findings identify standard sleep-rest provision as sub-optimal and the imperative to view care routines, such as sleep-rest, as opportunities for learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sleep and rest provision in early childhood education and care (ECEC) is commonly enacted as a routine – a standard time-period during which children are required to lie down even if they do not sleep. Yet contemporary ECEC policies emphasise responsive pedagogical practice that includes children in decision-making and respects each child's developmental and sociocultural context as appropriate pedagogical practice. To understand current practices, analyses of numeric data and textual accounts from a survey of Australian ECEC service providers, leaders and educators (N = 247) was undertaken. Two broad challenges to enabling responsive practice and inclusion of children in decision-making were identified: (1) Provisions – organisational interpretations of national policy and attendant resourcing set the structural parameters for achievement of responsive pedagogical practice. (2) Practices – individual and communal demands on educators and their professional philosophy set interactional parameters. Service leadership played a pivotal role in determining whether sleep–rest practices were Routine (84%) or Responsive (16%). Responsive leaders were characterised by strong professional advocacy for child rights and child-focused pedagogy. They instigated professional reflection and communication strategies within their service and removed expectation that educators could undertake alternative activity while providing for children's sleep and rest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy provision for naps is typical in child care settings, but there is variability in the practices employed. One practice that might modify children’s early sleep patterns is the allocation of a mandatory nap time in which all children are required to lie on their beds without alternate activity permitted. There is currently limited evidence of the effects of such practices on children’s napping patterns. This study examined the association between duration of mandatory nap times and group-level napping patterns in child care settings. Observations were undertaken in a community sample of 113 preschool rooms with a scheduled nap time (N= 2,114 children). Results showed that 83.5% of child care settings implemented a mandatory nap time (range = 15–145 min) while 14.2% provided alternate activities for children throughout the nap time period. Overall, 31% of children napped during nap times. Compared to rooms with ≤ 30 min of mandatory nap time, rooms with 31–60 min and > 60 min of mandatory nap time had a two-and-a-half and fourfold increase, respectively, in the proportion of children napping. Nap onset latency did not significantly differ across groups. Among preschool children, exposure to longer mandatory nap times in child care may increase incidence of napping. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]