Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Development of care in the NICU

Journal of Perinatology volume 34, pages 174–175 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

The ongoing debate about developmental care for high-risk newborns1, 2, 3 is useful in that it encourages a careful review of the evidence, but there is a bigger picture that should be beyond debate: newborns cannot be fully understood if we only think of them as isolated biological organisms. For too long, we have acknowledged in only the most superficial way that they are affected by their environment and are dependent on their family for biopsychosocial support that our medical care cannot duplicate.

In a way, this is an extension of the Cartesian dualism that most of us were trained in, a concept that the body and mind are independent entities. It is still evident today with direct extension of data generated in lab animals to their human counterparts. Such research is invaluable, but it is not sufficient. Extensive, intimate human contact affects the newborn in very real ways that modulate treatment outcomes and may not be reflected in research settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Ohlsson A, Jacobs SE . NIDCAP: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Pediatrics 2013; 131: e881–e893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Als H . Re: Ohlsson and Jacobs, NIDCAP: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Pediatrics 2013; 132: e552–e553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ohlsson A, Jacobs SE . Authors’ response: NIDCAP: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Pediatrics 2013; 132: e553–e557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bowlby J. . The effect of separation from the mother in early life. Ir J Med Sci 1954; 339: 121–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Seay B, Hansen E, Harlow HF . Mother-infant separation in monkeys. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1962; 3: 123–132.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Klaus MH, Kennell JH . Mothers separated from their newborn infants. Pediatr Clin North Am 1970; 17: 1015–1037.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sullivan R, Perry R, Sloan A, Kleinhaus K, Burtchen N . Infant bonding and attachment to the caregiver: insights from basic and clinical science. Clin Perinatol 2011; 38: 643–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ballard O, Morrow AL . Human milk composition: nutrients and bioactive factors. Pediatr Clin North Am 2013; 60: 49–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Neu J, Sullivan S . Baby and breast: a dynamic interaction. Pediatr Res 2012; 71: 135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Renfrew MJ, Craig D, Dyson L, McCormick F, Rice S, King SE et al. Breastfeeding promotion for infants in neonatal units: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13: 1–146.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Feldman R, Weller A, Sirota L, Eidelman AI . Testing a family intervention hypothesis: the contribution of mother-infant skin-to-skin care (kangaroo care) to family interaction, proximity, and touch. J Fam Psychol 2003; 17: 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Scher MS, Ludington-Hoe S, Kaffashi F, Johnson MW, Holditch-Davis D, Loparo KA . Neurophysiologic assessment of brain maturation after a 8-week trial of skin-to-skin contact on preterm infants. Clin Neurophysiol 2009; 120: 1812–1818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Moore ER, Anderson GC, Bergman N, Dowswell T . Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 16: (5): CD003519.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Takei Y, Yokoyama K, Katano H, Tsukiji M, Ezaki T . Molecular epidemiological analysis of methicillin-resistant staphylococci in a neonatal intensive care unit. Biocontrol Sci 2010; 15: 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Touati A, Achour W, Cherif A, Hmida HB, Afif FB, Jabnoun S et al. Outbreak of Acinetobacter baumannii in a neonatal intensive care unit: antimicrobial susceptibility and genotyping analysis. Ann Epidemiol 2009; 19: 372–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Abdel-Hady H, Hawas S, El-Daker M, El-Kady R . Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Klebsiella pneumonia in neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol 2008; 28: 685–690.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Karlsson V, Heinemann AB, Sjors G, Nykvist KH, Agren J . Early skin-to-skin care in extremely preterm infants: thermal balance and care environment. J Pediatr 2012; 161: 422–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Heimann K, Vaessen P, Peschgens T, Stanzl S, Wenzl TG, Orlikowsky T . Impact of skin to skin care, prone and supine positioning on cardiorespiratory parameters and thermoregulation in premature infants. Neonatology 2010; 97: 311–317.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gronlund MM, Grzeskowiak L, Isolauri E, Salminen S . Influence of mother’s intestinal microbiota on gut colonization in the infant. Gut Microbes 2011; 2: 227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sanz Y . Gut microbiota and probiotics in maternal and infant health. Am J Clin Nutr 2011; 94: 2000S–2005S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. O’Brien K, Bracht M, Macdonell K, McBride T, Robson K, O’Leary L et al. A pilot cohort analytic study of family integrated care in a Canadian neonatal intensive care unit. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013; 13 (Suppl 1): S12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. White RD . The newborn intensive care unit environment of care: how we got here, where we’re headed, and why. Semin Perinatol 2011; 35: 2–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Morag I, Ohlsson A . Cycled light in the intensive care unit for preterm and low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 8 CD006982.

  24. Loewy J, Stewart K, Dassler AM, Telsey A, Homel P . The effects of music therapy on vital signs, feeding, and sleep in premature infants. Pediatrics 2013; 131: 902–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Caskey M, Stephens B, Tucker R, Vohr B . Importance of parent talk on the development of preterm infant vocalizations. Pediatrics 2011; 128: 910–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hynan MT, Mounts KO, Vanderbilt DL . Screening parents of high-risk infants for emotional distress: rationale and recommendations. J Perinatol 2013; 33: 748–753.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Shaw RJ, Bernard RS, Deblois T, Ikuta LM, Ginzburg K, Koopman C . The relationship between acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder in the neonatal intensive care unit. Psychosomatics 2009; 50: 131–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Figueiro MG, White RD . Health consequences of shift work and implications for structural design. J Perinatol 2013; 33 (Suppl 1): S17–S23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pediatrix Medical Group, Newborn ICU, Memorial Hospital,

    R D White

  2. South Bend, IN, USA

    R D White

Authors
  1. R D White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R D White.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

White, R. Development of care in the NICU. J Perinatol 34, 174–175 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2013.134

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2013.134

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links