Search

BackgroundSuccessful national safer sleep campaigns in the United Kingdom have lowered the death rates from sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) over the past 3 decades, but deaths persist in socioeconomically deprived families. The circumstances of current deaths suggest that improvements in support for some families to follow safer sleep advice more consistently could save lives. ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop and evaluate a risk assessment and planning tool designed to improve the uptake of safer sleep advice in families with infants at increased risk of SUDI. MethodsA co-design approach was used to develop the prototype interface of a web-based tool with 2 parts: an individual SUDI risk assessment at birth and a downloadable plan for safety during times of disruption. The advice contained within the tool is concordant with national guidance from the Lullaby Trust, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. User testing of the prototype tool was conducted by inviting health visitors, midwives, and family nurses to use it with families eligible for additional support. Qualitative interviews with health professionals and families allowed for iterative changes to the tool and for insights into its function and influence on parental behavior. ResultsA total of 22 health professionals were enrolled in the study, of whom 20 (91%) were interviewed. They reported appreciating the functionality of the tool, which allowed them to identify at-risk families for further support. They felt that the tool improved how they communicated about risks with families. They suggested expanding its use to include relevance in the antenatal period and having versions available in languages other than English. They reported using the tool with 58 families; 20 parents gave consent to be interviewed by the research team about their experiences with the tool. Families were positive about the tool, appreciated the trustworthy information, and felt that it was useful and appropriate and that the plans for specific infant sleeps would be of benefit to them and other family members. ConclusionsOur tool combines risk assessment and safety planning, both of which have the potential to improve the uptake of lifesaving advice. Refinements to the tool based on these findings have ensured that the tool is ready for further evaluation in a larger study before being rolled out to families with infants at increased risk.

Objectives Using the National Child Mortality Database, this work aims to investigate background characteristics and risk factors in the sleeping environment associated with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and compare the prevalence with previous English SIDS case–control studies.Design Cohort of SIDS in 2020 compared with a combined analysis of two case–control studies conducted in 1993–1996 and 2003–2006.Setting England, UKParticipants 138 SIDS deaths in 2020 compared with 402 SIDS deaths and 1387 age-equivalent surviving controls, combined from previous studies.Results The increased vulnerability of SIDS infants identified in previous studies has become more marked. The infants who died in 2020 were younger (median=66 days (IQR: 34–118) vs 86 days (IQR: 52–148), p=0.003) with an increased prevalence of low birth weight (30.5% vs 21.6%, p=0.04) and preterm births (29.6% vs 19.3%, p=0.012). The excess of socioeconomically deprived families, male infants and high levels of maternal smoking during pregnancy were still evident. Among recent deaths, fewer infants were put down or found on their side; however, there was no significant change in the proportion of infants who were put down (15.6% vs 14.6%, p=0.81) and found prone (40.4% vs 35.3%, p=0.37), despite population wide risk reduction advice over three decades. The proportional increase observed in 2003–2006 of half the deaths occurring while sleeping next to an adult was maintained in 2020, and for the vast majority (90%), this was in hazardous circumstances (adult had consumed alcohol, smoked, slept on a sofa, or the infant was premature or low birth weight and less than 3 months old). More deaths also occurred when there was a disruption in infant care routine compared with previous observations (52.6% vs 20.7%, p