Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Aug 1;19(8):e0305625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305625

Bedsharing among breastfeeding physicians: Results of a nationwide survey

Adetola F Louis-Jacques 1,*, Melissa Bartick 2,3,, Adeola Awomolo 4,, Jiaqi Zhang 5, Lori Feldman-Winter 6, Stephanie A Leonard 5, Joan Meek 7, Katrina B Mitchell 8, Susan Crowe 5
Editor: Linglin Xie9
PMCID: PMC11293648  PMID: 39088472

Abstract

Introduction

Bedsharing is common but advised against by the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is unknown if breastfeeding physicians bedshare more or less than the general population.

Objectives

To determine the prevalence of bedsharing among physicians, their reasons for bedsharing or not, and whether bedsharing was associated with a longer duration of breastfeeding.

Methods

An online survey was adapted from surveys administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The survey was administered to physicians and medical students who birthed children from October 2020 through August 2021. Respondents were asked to report on a singleton birth, and questions centered around sleep practices and breastfeeding. Survival analysis was used to examine the association between bedsharing and breastfeeding duration.

Results

Of 546 respondents with bedsharing data, 68% reported some history of bedsharing, and 77% were in specialties that involved caring for pregnant people and/or infants. Those who bedshared breastfed an average of four months longer than those who never bedshared (18.08 versus 14.08 months p<0.001). The adjusted risk of breastfeeding cessation was markedly lower for those who bedshared compared to those who did not (Hazard Ratio 0.57, 95% Confidence Interval 0.45, 0.71). The primary reason for bedsharing was to breastfeed (73%); the primary reason for not bedsharing was safety concerns (92%). Among those who bedshared (n = 373), 52% did not inform their child’s healthcare provider.

Conclusions

Bedsharing is common among our sample of mainly breastfeeding physicians, including those who care for pregnant people and/or infants. It is also associated with a longer duration of breastfeeding, which has implications for population health. Practicing bedsharing implies cognitive dissidence and may affect how physicians counsel about bedsharing. Additionally, lack of disclosure of bedsharing practices has implications for practical guidance about having open non-judgmental conversations and may be a missed opportunity to counsel on bedsharing safety.

Introduction

Bedsharing has been associated with increased breastfeeding duration and exclusivity [13]. Although breastfeeding has been associated with a lower risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) [4, 5], the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) advises against bedsharing due to concerns that it may increase the risk of sleep-related infant death [6]. However, no clear evidence exists that routine bedsharing itself, in the absence of hazards, causes sleep-related death [4, 7]. The only case control study that examined bedsharing in the absence of risk and used a comparison group of solitary sleeping and room-sharing infants found no significant increased risk [7].

Hazardous circumstances consist of sofa or chair sharing with a sleeping adult, sleeping on soft bedding, sharing a bed with an adult impaired by alcohol or drugs, never having initiated breastfeeding, or sleeping with a preterm or low birthweight infant [8]. Unplanned bedsharing is associated with a two-fold increased risk of SIDS, whereas routine bedsharing without hazards does not appear to be associated with an increased risk [9]. In an effort to avoid bedsharing, parents have fallen asleep with their infants in hazardous locations on sofas or chairs [10].

Populations where bedsharing is common often have low rates of sleep-related infant death [11, 12] associated with low population levels of hazardous risk factors [11]; populations with high rates of death also have high population rates of known hazardous risks (i.e. tobacco exposure) [11].

Bedsharing is common, with 61% of US mothers practicing some bedsharing, regardless of breastfeeding status [13]. Despite the AAP recommendations against bedsharing, first noted in 1997 [14] and widely implemented in 2005 [15], the rates of US bedsharing have not decreased [8, 13]. The US rate of sleep-related infant death has also not decreased in recent years [16], and remains one of the highest rates of all high-income countries [11].

In 2016, Spain’s PrevInfad stated that there was not enough evidence to recommend against bedsharing among breastfeeding infants (Level 1 recommendation) [17]. In 2019, the United Kingdom (UK) stopped advising against all bedsharing, except in hazardous circumstances [18]. The UK’s National Institute for Health Care and Excellence also concluded there is “no greater risk of harm when parents shared a bed with their baby compared to not bed sharing” [19]. Norway does not advise against bedsharing and advises safe bedsharing [20]. Australia adopted a risk minimization approach in their advice to parents [18, 21], acknowledging that bedsharing is common and emphasizing avoidance of hazardous circumstances. This position is shared by the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (ABM), which states that existing evidence does not support the conclusion that bedsharing causes SIDS in bedsharing breastfeeding dyads [8]. Furthermore, the ABM states that “in the absence of hazardous circumstances, accidental suffocation is extremely rare among bedsharing breastfeeding infants” [8]. Although the AAP guidance in 2022 continues to recommend against bedsharing, it acknowledges that unintentional bedsharing occurs [6].

Breastfeeding physicians may possess medical knowledge about the importance of breastfeeding. Physicians’ rigorous work schedules may make breastfeeding challenging and put them at risk for lower duration of any and exclusive breastfeeding [22]. They also may be familiar with recommendations around safe sleep, specifically the recommendations never to bedshare. Some are also expected to convey these recommendations to parents. If physicians themselves are bedsharing, they may find themselves conflicted if they are also expected to counsel parents against it.

It is unknown if breastfeeding physicians bedshare more or less than the general population, given their presumed knowledge about breastfeeding and bedsharing, as well as the demands on their time. We hypothesized that bedsharing was common among physicians and would also be associated with longer breastfeeding duration, consistent with data from the general US population [13]. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of bedsharing among physicians, their reasons for bedsharing or not, and whether bedsharing was associated with a longer duration of breastfeeding.

Methods

Study instrument and population

An online survey (S1 Appendix) was adapted from surveys administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Infant Feeding Practices Survey [23], Pregnancy Risk Assessment Survey [24], and investigator-developed questions. For simplicity, we wanted to limit the survey to one birth per respondent. For our specific population, we asked respondents to report on a singleton birth during a self-defined “most strenuous time” in their careers. This period was chosen to capture a period when physicians were most likely to experience reduced breastfeeding duration. We also asked questions regarding their medical training at the time they gave birth.

The recruitment materials invited respondents to participate in a survey about infant “feeding and sleep.” A convenience sample were recruited through social media platforms and by email listservs targeting breastfeeding physicians from October 2020 through August 2021. We recruited respondents through the closed Facebook groups, Dr. MILK, which consists exclusively of physicians and medical students who are mothers, as well as Physician Moms Group, which consists of physician mothers. Recruitment invitations were also sent to the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine listserv, asking for physicians and medical students with a history of birthing a singleton pregnancy. The survey was administered using the Qualtrics platform to physicians and medical students who had given birth. The investigators did not have access to information that could identify individual participants during and after data collection.

Participants were excluded if they were not a physician or medical student, did not have a singleton birth, were missing bedsharing data, or listed “any” breastfeeding data shorter than “exclusive” breastfeeding data. Multiple gestations were excluded since that may confound the probability of breastfeeding continuation. The study was deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Board of Stanford University. The purpose of the study was briefly described via text, and those who wanted to participate could consent by clicking a link to the survey. The study was unfunded.

We are using terms such as “mothers” “women” and “breastfeeding” when discussing both literature and/or our study respondents. However, we acknowledge that some subjects could have been of any gender identity.

Outcome measures

Bedsharing was both an exposure and an outcome measure. We considered the respondent to be bedsharing if they answered, “in bed with you” to the question “What did your baby usually sleep in if they slept in the same room as you?” Respondents were also asked if they bedshared “always, sometimes, or never.” We also examined bedsharing by time period during the first year of the infant’s life: 0–3 months, 4–6 months, and 7–12 months.

We examined breastfeeding outcomes such as duration of any breastfeeding, and whether mothers met their own breastfeeding goals. The breastfeeding duration question was formatted in a way that most of the respondents who were still breastfeeding at the time of the survey left the question unanswered. For the exclusive breastfeeding question, multiple choice responses were provided for duration, with the longest duration being “8 months or greater.” Because the survey did not define exclusive breastfeeding, and respondents may have misinterpreted our intended definition, we elected not to use “exclusive breastfeeding” as a separate outcome.

There were 114 respondents whose only breastfeeding data came from their answer to the “exclusive” breastfeeding question. Of these, 66 answered “8 months or greater.” The main analysis on breastfeeding duration excluded these respondents. We also performed a sensitivity analysis that included these 114 participants, in which the duration of breastfeeding was assumed to be the reported “exclusive” breastfeeding duration. When the duration of “exclusive” breastfeeding was reported as “8 months or greater,” “any” breastfeeding was assumed to be 8 months.

We also examined respondents’ reasons for bedsharing or not bedsharing. Respondents could choose as many of the multiple choices presented to them as desired.

Other variables

We included training status, specialty, marital status, race/ethnicity, geographic location, self-reported postpartum depression, and whether the birth was before 2005 or 2005 or after. We chose this year to reflect the timeframe when AAP strongly recommended against bedsharing and the more widespread adoption of recommendations against bedsharing implemented in the US [15]. We also included a question about whether or not bedsharing was revealed to their child’s healthcare provider.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and the mean and standard deviation for quantitative variables, were computed to summarize the participant’s characteristics and reasons for bedsharing and not bedsharing. A survival analysis was used to estimate the association between any bedsharing and breastfeeding duration. The survival function for breastfeeding was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and difference of breastfeeding duration between bedsharing was analyzed by the log rank test. Mothers who were still breastfeeding at the time of the survey were censored. For confirming and quantifying the unadjusted and adjusted associations between bedsharing and duration of breastfeeding, we applied univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. We adjusted for medical specialty, trainee status, race, Hispanic ethnicity, self-reported postpartum depression, and infant birth year before or after 2005. The proportionality assumption was tested by Schoenfeld residual test and scaled Schoenfeld residual plot (S2 Appendix). We used multiple imputation to address missing data among the covariates. Statistical tests were two sided and a p-value of 0.05 was considered significant. Analyses were done with Stata, version 17, College Station, Texas) and R (http://www.r-project.org) software, version 4.1.3.

Results

There were 806 survey responses. Of our total sample of 546 respondents with bedsharing data (Fig 1 and Table 1), 83% reported themselves as White, 9% as Asian, and 4% as Black/African American. Nearly all respondents initiated breastfeeding (99%) and most indicated they were married or had a domestic partner (98%). Just over half (51%) were attending level, 47% were residents or fellows, and 2% were medical students. Nearly half were pediatricians or medicine-pediatrics (45%), 18% were obstetricians-gynecologists, and 16% were family physicians. Only 10% gave birth before 2005. Nearly all respondents (98%) were from the US or Puerto Rico. The mean duration of breastfeeding was 17 months. Respondents with babies born after 2005 were more likely to report “never bedsharing” (164/488 = 34%) as compared to respondents with babies born prior to 2005 (9/54 = 17%) (p = 0.011). Overall, 68% reported bedsharing (Table 2). Of those respondents who bedshared, 52% did not report it to their child’s healthcare provider and 19% did not answer the question.

Fig 1. Participant flow chart.

Fig 1

Inclusion criteria were physicians and medical students who had given birth. Participants were excluded if they were not a physician or medical student, did not have a singleton birth, were missing bedsharing data, or listed “any” breastfeeding data shorter than “exclusive” breastfeeding data. Participants with missing any breastfeeding and “exclusive breastfeeding” duration data were excluded from the model sensitivity analysis. Participants with missing any breastfeeding data were excluded from the model main analysis.

Table 1. Characteristics of the survey respondents.

Characteristics Respondents with bedsharing data Respondents with bedsharing and breastfeeding data
Overall Never bedsharing Ever bedsharing Overall Never bedsharing Ever bedsharing
n = 5461 n = 4081
n = 1731 n = 3731 n = 1341 n = 2741
Race
African American 22 (4.2%) 6 (3.5%) 16 (4.5%) 21 (5.3%) 6 (4.5%) 15 (5.7%)
Asian 46 (8.7%) 13 (7.6%) 33 (9.3%) 33 (8.3%) 11 (8.2%) 22 (8.4%)
White 438 (83%) 150 (88%) 288 (81%) 328 (83%) 115 (86%) 213 (81%)
Other 21 (4.0%) 2 (1.2%) 19 (5.3%) 14 (3.5%) 2 (1.5%) 12 (4.6%)
Missing 19 2 17 12 12
Hispanic / Latino
Hispanic/Latino 32 (6.5%) 8 (5.0%) 24 (7.2%) 25 (6.8%) 8 (6.6%) 17 (6.9%)
Non-Hispanic/Latino 460 (93%) 151 (95%) 309 (93%) 342 (93%) 114 (93%) 228 (93%)
Missing 54 14 40 41 12 29
Age of child, in years, mean (SD) 6(8) 5(7) 7(8) 8(8) 7(7) 9(9)
Missing 4 4 3 3
Marital status at the time of infancy of the child
Married/Domestic Partner 534 (98%) 170 (98%) 364 (98%) 401 (98%) 132 (99%) 269 (98%)
Other 10 (1.8%) 3 (1.7%) 7 (1.9%) 7 (1.7%) 2 (1.5%) 5 (1.8%)
Missing 2 2
On the night that you and your baby laid down together or slept together, who else usually laid down with or slept with you. **
Your husband or partner 342 (81%) 47 (77%) 295 (81%) 254 (89%) 39 (81%) 215 (81%)
Your other child or children 18 (4.2%) 1 (1.6%) 17 (4.7%) 12 (4.2%) 1 (2.1%) 11 (4.1%)
Other people 2 (0.5%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.5%) 2 (0.7%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.7%)
No one else 91 (21%) 13 (21%) 78 (21%) 66 (23%) 8 (17%) 58 (22%)
Missing 121 112 9 93 86 7
Postpartum depression            
Yes 137 (25%) 43 (25%) 94 (25%) 109 (27%) 33 (25%) 76 (28%)
No 407 (75%) 129 (75%) 278 (75%) 298 (73%) 100 (75%) 198 (72%)
Missing 2 1 1 1 1
Length of maternity leave, mean (SD) 9.7(4.5) 9.8(4.4) 9.7(4.5) 9.5(4.5) 9.6(4.5) 9.4(4.6)
Missing 10 5 5 8 4 4
Trainee Status
Medical student 11 (2.0%) 1 (0.6%) 10 (2.7%) 8 (2.0%) 1 (0.8%) 7 (2.6%)
Resident 196 (36%) 59 (34%) 137 (37%) 153 (38%) 47 (35%) 106 (39%)
Fellow 59 (11%) 13 (7.6%) 46 (12%) 48 (12%) 11 (8.3%) 37 (14%)
Not a Trainee 277 (51%) 99 (58%) 178 (48%) 197 (49%) 74 (56%) 123 (45%)
Missing 3 1 2 2 1 1
Specialty
Pediatrics/Med-Peds 242 (45%) 84 (49%) 158 (42%) 197 (49%) 65 (49%) 132 (48%)
Obstetrics and Gynecology 95 (18%) 30 (18%) 65 (17%) 79 (19%) 26 (20%) 53 (19%)
Surgery/Surgical Specialties 46 (8.5%) 9 (5.3%) 37 (9.9%) 33 (8.1%) 8 (6.1%) 25 (9.1%)
Internal Medicine/Medicine Specialties 35 (6.5%) 12 (7.1%) 23 (6.2%) 24 (5.9%) 7 (5.3%) 17 (6.2%)
Family Medicine 85 (16%) 20 (12%) 65 (17%) 46 (11%) 13 (9.8%) 33 (12%)
Emergency Medicine 16 (3.0%) 9 (5.3%) 7 (1.9%) 11 (2.7%) 8 (6.1%) 3 (1.1%)
Other* 23 (4.2%) 6 (3.5%) 17 (4.6%) 16 (3.9%) 5 (3.8%) 11 (4.0%)
Missing 4 3 1 2 2
Geographic Region
West*** 103 (19%) 26 (15%) 77 (21%) 76 (19%) 21 (16%) 55 (20%)
Midwest 128 (24%) 49 (28%) 79 (21%) 95 (23%) 32 (24%) 63 (23%)
Southwest 56 (10%) 17 (9.8%) 39 (11%) 41 (10%) 16 (12%) 25 (9.2%)
Northeast 111 (20%) 34 (20%) 77 (21%) 79 (19%) 27 (20%) 52 (19%)
Southeast 133 (24%) 44 (25%) 89 (24%) 107 (26%) 35 (26%) 72 (26%)
Puerto Rico 3 (0.6%) 2 (1.2%) 1 (0.3%) 3 (0.7%) 2 (1.5%) 1 (0.4%)
Alaska 10 (1.8%) 1 (0.6%) 9 (2.4%) 6 (1.5%) 1 (0.7%) 5 (1.8%)
Not in the US 10 (1.8%) 1 (0.6%) 9 (2.4%) 6 (1.5%) 1 (0.7%) 5 (1.8%)
Missing 2 2 1 1
Year of Infant Birth/AAP Sleep Recs
Born before 2005 54 (10%) 9 (5.2%) 45 (12%) 54 (13%) 9 (7%) 45 (17%)
Born 2005 or after 488 (90%) 164 (95%) 324 (88%) 351 (87%) 125 (93%) 226 (83%)
Missing 4 4 3 3
Achieved personal breastfeeding goal 413 (78%) 127 (76%) 286 (79%) 299 (73%) 97 (72%) 202 (74%)
Missing 16 5 11
Exclusive breastfeeding at least 6 mo 375 (72%) 117 (70%) 258 (72%) 291 (71%) 98 (73%) 193 (70%)
Missing 24 7 17
Any breastfeeding at 6 mo 41 (10%) 13 (9.7%) 28 (10%) 41 (10%) 13 (9.7%) 28 (10%)
Missing 138 39 99
Any breastfeeding at 12 mo 122 (30%) 48 (36%) 74 (27%) 122 (30%) 48 (36%) 74 (27%)
Missing 138 39 99
Any breastfeeding at 24 mo 184 (45%) 63 (47%) 121 (44%) 184 (45%) 63 (47%) 121 (44%)
Missing 138 39 99
Any breastfeeding longer than 24 mo 61 (15%) 10 (7.5%) 51 (19%) 61 (15%) 10 (7.5%) 51 (19%)
Missing 138 39 99
Duration of any breastfeeding (mo), mean (SD) 17(11) 14(7) 18(12) 17(11%) 14(7%) 18(12%)
Missing 138 39 99
Stopped breastfeeding before survey 399 (73%) 129 (75%) 270 (72%) 388 (95%) 126 (94%) 262 (96%)
Still breastfeeding at time of survey 147 (27%) 44 (25%) 103 (28%) 20 (5%) 8 (6%) 12 (4%)

1 n (%); Mean (SD)

2 Pearson’s Chi-squared tests; Wilcoxon rank sum test; Fisher’s exact test. Fisher’s exact test and simulated p-value were applied to geographic region and specialty variable.

% Represents column percentage.

* Other: Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Psychiatry, Preventive Medicine, Pathology, Radiation Oncology, Anesthesiology, Interventional Radiology, Radiology.

**Respondents could select more than one response.

***West: include Alaska

mo = Months

Table 2. Distribution of bedsharing by duration (n = 546).

Bedsharing duration (months) n = 373 Bedsharing duration n = 373
0–3 only 90 (24.1%) up to 3 90 (24.1%)
0–6 68 (18.2%) up to 6 100 (26.8%)
4–6 only 32 (8.6%)
4–12 33 (8.8%) up to 12 183 (49.1%)
7–12 only 48 (12.9%)
0–12 98 (26.3%)
0–3 and 7–12 4 (1.1%)

While the survey showed that both bedsharers and never bedsharers met their breastfeeding goals, the survival analysis revealed that any bedsharing was associated with 4 more months of breastfeeding, 18.08 versus 14.08 months (p<0.001, Fig 2). The proportionality assumption was tested by the Schoenfeld residual test and Schoenfeld residual scaled plot and was not violated (Schoenfeld residual global test p = 0.061). The adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) for cessation of breastfeeding in bedsharers compared to never bedsharers was 0.56 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.45, 0.71, p<0.001) (Table 3). Even when assuming reported “exclusive breastfeeding” data for those missing any breastfeeding data, those who bedshared breastfed for 3 months longer than those who did not bedshare (adjusted HR 0.56 and 95% [CI] 0.44, 0.70, p<0.001) (Table 4).

Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier plot for any breastfeeding duration.

Fig 2

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for duration of any breastfeeding (in months) among participants who ever bedshared, and participants who never bedshared.

Table 3. Association between breastfeeding and bedsharing (Main analyses).

Duration of any breastfeeding by months, mean (SD) Univariate Test Unadjusted HR! (95% CI) p value Adjusted HR p value
(95% CI)
n = 408 16.77 (11.16) n = 408 n = 408
No Bedsharing (n = 134) 14.08 (7.38) log-rank test: P < 0.001 reference reference
Any Bedsharing (n = 274) 18.08 (12.4) 0.66 (0.53, 0.83) <0.001 0.56 (0.45, 0.71) <0.001

Participants with missing any breastfeeding data were excluded and those who were still breastfeeding were censored.

*Multiple imputation was applied to impute missing values in covariates

1Hazard ratio: univariate cox regression was implemented to calculate the unadjusted hazard ratio for bedsharing. Multivariate cox regression was implemented to calculate the adjusted hazard ratio for bedsharing.

Table 4. Association between breastfeeding and bedsharing (Sensitivity analyses).

Duration of any breastfeeding by months, mean (SD) Univariate Test Unadjusted HR! (95% CI) p value Adjusted HR (95% CI) p value
n = 522 # 14.48 (10.83) n = 522 n = 522 *
No Bedsharing (n = 134) 12.45(7.52) log-rank test: P < 0.001 reference reference
Any Bedsharing (n = 274) 15.43 (11.96) 0.66 (0.53, 0.82) <0.001 0.56 (0.44, 0.70) <0.001

#For participants who did not fill in duration of any breastfeeding, the duration of any breastfeeding was imputed to be the reported exclusive breastfeeding duration. The imputation of duration of any breastfeeding was based on assumption that cannot be tested. Participants who were still breastfeeding and whose duration of any breastfeeding was imputed were censored.

* Multiple imputation was applied to impute missing values in covariates.

1Hazard ratio: univariate cox regression was implemented to calculate the unadjusted hazard ratio for bedsharing. Multivariate cox regression was implemented to calculate the adjusted hazard ratio for bedsharing.

Of the respondents who indicated their reasons for bedsharing, 73% did so to breastfeed. In addition, 59% indicated that they bedshared because it helped either the baby or the respondent sleep better. Some respondents indicated that they practiced bedsharing to be close to or bond with baby (28%) or to comfort a fussy baby (45%). Of the respondents who indicated their reasons for not bedsharing, 92% indicated that it was due to safety concerns, and 22% indicated that a doctor or nurse had advised them against sleeping with their baby (Table 5).

Table 5. Reasons respondents gave for or for not bedsharing (n = 546).

Reasons for bedsharing n = 367*
To breastfeed 268 (73%)
Sleeping with my baby helped the baby or me sleep better 215 (59%)
To comfort when fussy 164 (45%)
To be close or bond 104 (28%)
To comfort when sick 61 (17%)
Not applicable 31 (8%)
I thought it was safer 28 (8%)
It was commonly done in my family 27 (7%)
Other 14 (4%)
To bottle feed 8 (2%)
A doctor or nurse advised sleeping with my baby to breastfeed 5 (1%)
To help with a blocked milk duct or other BF problem 4 (1%)
Reasons for not bedsharing for not bedsharing n = 165 *
I thought it was safer if my baby did not sleep with me 151 (92%)
A doctor or nurse advised not sleeping with my baby 36 (22%)
I thought it would be too hard to get my baby to sleep in a crib when older 23 (14%)
It was not commonly done in my family 22 (13%)
We woke each other up, or baby woke me or others in the bed 21 (13%)
Not applicable 4 (2.4%)
Other 2 (1.2%)
I smoke, take sedative medicine or other reason 1 (0.6%)

*There were 6 respondents who bedshared who did not select any reasons and 8 respondents who never bedshared and did not select reasons for not bedsharing.

Discussion

We found bedsharing was common among breastfeeding physicians consistent with our hypothesis, including physicians in specialties caring for women/mothers and/or infants. Also consistent with previous literature in the general population and our hypothesis, bedsharing is associated with longer duration of breastfeeding among physicians. There was a greater than 40% HR decrease for breastfeeding cessation.

Those who bedshared did so mainly to breastfeed and to help with sleep. For the overwhelming majority (>90%) of those who did not bedshare, their main reason was a concern for safety, suggesting that they were influenced by medical recommendations. While both groups reported being able to meet their breastfeeding goals, bedsharing physicians breastfed 4 months longer, which is consistent with existing literature [13]. This is relevant especially with new US recommendations supporting 2 years of breastfeeding [25]. To our knowledge, this is the first study conducted about personal experiences of bedsharing among breastfeeding physicians.

In our sample, physicians were weighing safety concerns against the need to facilitate breastfeeding and sleep. It is unclear if intention to bedshare may have played a role in breastfeeding duration and breastfeeding goals, as has been suggested in a previous study [2].

Respondents who did and did not bedshare both met their own breastfeeding goals. This could be that not bedsharing may make breastfeeding more challenging, thereby leading to more modest breastfeeding duration goals. Conversely, it could be that there are additional unmeasured confounders between these groups that may lead to different bedsharing practices and different breastfeeding duration goals. In other words, differences in breastfeeding goals or values between bedsharers and non-bedsharers could explain the difference in breastfeeding duration.

The large majority of our sample of mainly US breastfeeding physicians did not follow the AAP safe sleep guidelines on bedsharing, similar to other US populations [13]. In a questionnaire of women in Oregon who had recently given birth, 25.1% reported always bedsharing with their infant, and only 15.7% reported never bedsharing [3]. One would expect physicians to be among the most compliant groups to follow the AAP guidelines, given their type of work in the healthcare sector, and the fact that many are expected to counsel on this guideline as part of their job. This finding demonstrates that the recommendations are not consistent with the lived experiences of the physicians in our sample. We do not know if our respondents were unable or unwilling to follow the guidelines; if they did not believe the guidelines were applicable to them; or if they felt they were putting their infant at risk by bedsharing but did it regardless of safety concerns. In a qualitative study of pediatricians, authors noted more than 50% of interviewees believed that bedsharing is acceptable to facilitate breastfeeding and can be practiced safely [26].

Most of the hazardous risks for sleep-related death and bedsharing are modifiable, except for preterm or low birthweight infants. It is unclear how many of the never-bedsharers had unmodifiable circumstances that would have made bedsharing particularly unsafe in our sample of predominantly breastfeeding physicians. Future studies could explore bedsharing behaviors among non-breastfeeding physicians.

The 2022 AAP Policy states, “…we are unable to recommend bed sharing under any circumstance,” and the AAP also “understands and respects that many parents choose to routinely bed share for a variety of reasons, including facilitation of breastfeeding, cultural preferences, and a belief that it is better and safer for their infant” [6]. While the AAP encourages clinicians to have open and nonjudgmental conversations with parents about the relative risks and benefits of bedsharing [6, 27], doing so may be challenging in the face of a strong recommendation against any bedsharing [28] and possible severe social consequences for doing so.

Growing evidence suggests proximate mother-infant sleep with breastfeeding is the evolutionary norm because it is a biological imperative, based on the physiology of human lactation [29, 30]. Bedsharing breastfed infants do not naturally sleep prone, as they roll onto their backs after feeding [31]. Additionally, bedsharing supports better maternal rest, more infant arousals, and maternal responsivity to infant arousals which may be protective [32, 33].

In our study, sleep was the second most cited reason for bedsharing. In a laboratory setting of breastfeeding mothers, 94% of routinely bedsharing mothers reported that they slept “enough” after a night of bedsharing, versus 80% of routinely solitary sleeping mothers after a night of solitary sleep [32]. Therefore, it is not surprising that breastfeeding mothers, including breastfeeding physicians, report sleep as a reason for bedsharing.

Multiple studies [13, 34] show a strong association between bedsharing and breastfeeding duration, the additional evidence on bedsharing and increased frequency and length of feeds with bedsharing compared to solitary sleep may suggest a causal relationship between bedsharing and breastfeeding duration [34]. Duration of breastfeeding is associated with decreased risk of other childhood diseases [25] such as obesity and leukemia, and lifetime duration of breastfeeding is associated with reduced risk of maternal disease [25] including breast cancer, ovarian cancer, myocardial infarction, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and stroke. Bedsharing recommendations intended to reduce sleep-related deaths may inadvertently increase the risk of morbidity and mortality from other diseases in children and mothers.

Our study has multiple strengths and limitations. This survey included a large sampling with over 400 respondents for our main analysis, who had exceptionally high rates of breastfeeding, so we were able to analyze associations between bedsharing and continuation of breastfeeding. The study was not intended to be a random sampling of physician mothers; rather we aimed to examine breastfeeding physicians about their sleep practices. This intentionally selective sample of physician mothers who breastfed and were likely exceptionally motivated to breastfeed (based on average breastfeeding duration longer than national average) [35]. Selection bias about bedsharing was minimized by the vague language in the recruitment materials. Given that nearly all subjects intended to breastfeed, yet a sizable minority chose not to bedshare, confounding by breastfeeding intention is unlikely to explain the longer duration of breastfeeding among bedsharers.

One limitation is that physicians were at the most strenuous point in their careers, which could limit the generalizability to physician mothers who may have had more time or support. Some mothers at this time in their career may have spent time with their infants mostly at night due to training or career demands. Choosing the most strenuous time may have biased this sample towards decreased breastfeeding duration as well as increased bedsharing.

We did not collect data regarding maternal age, which can affect feeding choice and lactogenesis [36]; however, as nearly all respondents breastfed, this would not have been expected to have made a difference in our results. We did not ask respondents’ gender identity, but gender-affirming treatments for transmen would have biased our results toward the null. Also, we did not inquire regarding the presence or absence of sleep hazards. Although 52% of bedsharers did not inform their pediatric care provider of this practice, we did not explore the reasons for this non-disclosure (i.e., were they not asked, did they not agree with bedsharing recommendations, or did they fear stigma?). We did not ask about unintentional versus routine bedsharing or gather information about respondents’ beliefs about the AAP guidelines. These questions would be informative topics for future research.

Further, one-third of respondents did not respond to questions about bedsharing or breastfeeding and these respondents were excluded. We do not know if missing bedsharing and breastfeeding data were missing at random or not, and whether this would have biased our outcomes. In addition, 114 reported duration of exclusive breastfeeding but did not report duration of any breastfeeding; however, we performed a sensitivity analysis in which we assessed this missingness of any breastfeeding duration and did not find an effect on the results. Other limitations include a cross-sectional, and retrospective collection of self-reported data and the possibility of residual confounding (unmeasured shared common cause of both bedsharing and breastfeeding e.g., personal beliefs and motivations).

Conclusion

Despite current US recommendations against bedsharing, this practice is common among our sample of mainly breastfeeding physicians, including those who care for pregnant people and/or infants. It is also associated with a longer duration of breastfeeding, which has implications for population health. The practice of bedsharing implies cognitive dissidence and may affect how physicians counsel about bedsharing and the AAP recommendations. Additionally, lack of disclosure of bedsharing practices has implications for practical guidance about having open non-judgmental conversations. This lack of disclosure and openness may also be a missed opportunity to counsel on bedsharing safety if most parents are practicing it.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. STROBE statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

(DOCX)

pone.0305625.s001.docx (20.4KB, docx)
S1 Appendix. Physician mothers/birthing people infant feeding and sleep survey.

(DOCX)

pone.0305625.s002.docx (29.5KB, docx)
S2 Appendix. Cox proportional hazards modeling.

(DOCX)

pone.0305625.s003.docx (171.7KB, docx)
S1 Dataset. Survey dataset.

(XLSX)

pone.0305625.s004.xlsx (194.2KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Giovanna Cruz for her statistical support. We are also grateful to Drs. Andrea Braden, Kristina Lehman, and Laurie Jones for their assistance with survey distribution.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Huang Y, Hauck FR, Signore C, Yu A, Raju TN, Huang TT-K, et al. Influence of bedsharing activity on breastfeeding duration among US mothers. JAMA pediatrics. 2013;167(11):1038–44. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.2632 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ball HL, 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. 2016;105(6):628–34. doi: 10.1111/apa.13354 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bovbjerg ML, Hill JA, Uphoff AE, Rosenberg KD. Women who bedshare more frequently at 14 weeks postpartum subsequently report longer durations of breastfeeding. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health. 2018;63(4):418–24. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12753 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hauck FR, Thompson JM, Tanabe KO, Moon RY, Vennemann MM. Breastfeeding and reduced risk of sudden infant death syndrome: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):103–10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Thompson J, Tanabe K, Moon RY, Mitchell EA, McGarvey C, Tappin D, et al. Duration of breastfeeding and risk of SIDS: An individual participant data meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2017;140(5). doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Moon RY, Carlin RF, Hand I, SYNDROME TFOSID. Sleep-related infant deaths: updated 2022 recommendations for reducing infant deaths in the sleep environment. Pediatrics. 2022;150(1). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Blair PS, Sidebotham P, Pease A, Fleming PJ. Bed-sharing in the absence of hazardous circumstances: Is there a risk of sudden infant death syndrome? An analysis from two case-control studies conducted in the UK. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107799. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Blair PS, Ball HL, McKenna JJ, Feldman-Winter L, Marinelli KA, Bartick MC, et al. Bedsharing and breastfeeding: the academy of breastfeeding medicine protocol# 6, revision 2019. Breastfeeding Medicine. 2020;15(1):5–16. doi: 10.1089/bfm.2019.29144.psb [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vennemann MM, Hense H-W, Bajanowski T, Blair PS, Complojer C, Moon RY, et al. Bed sharing and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome: can we resolve the debate? The Journal of pediatrics. 2012;160(1):44–8. e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.06.052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kendall–Tackett K, Cong Z, Hale TW. Mother–Infant Sleep Locations and Nighttime Feeding Behavior: US Data from the Survey of Mothers’ Sleep and Fatigue. Clinical Lactation. 2010;1(1):27–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bartick M, Tomori C. Sudden infant death and social justice: A syndemics approach. Maternal & child nutrition. 2019;15(1):e12652. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.McKenna JJ, McDade T. Why babies should never sleep alone: A review of the co-sleeping controversy in relation to SIDS, bedsharing and breast feeding. Paediatric respiratory reviews. 2005;6(2):134–52. doi: 10.1016/j.prrv.2005.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bombard JM, Kortsmit K, Warner L, Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Cox S, Kroelinger CD, et al. Vital signs: Trends and disparities in infant safe sleep practices—United States, 2009–2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2018;67(1):39. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6701e1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kattwinkel J, Brooks J. Does bed sharing affect the risk of SIDS? Pediatrics. 1997;100(2):272–. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The changing concept of sudden infant death syndrome: diagnostic coding shifts, controversies regarding the sleeping environment, and new variables to consider in reducing risk. Pediatrics. 2005;116(5):1245–55. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sudden Unexpected Infant Death and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Data and statistics: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2021. [Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/sids/data.htm. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sanchez Ruiz-Cabello FJ. Prevención del síndrome de muerte súbita en el lactante 2016. [Available from: https://previnfad.aepap.org/monografia/muerte-subita-lactante. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lullaby Trust Baby Sleep Info Source. Safer sleep for babies: A guide for parents London, England: UNICEF UF Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative; 2019 [Available from: https://www.lullabytrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Safer-sleep-for-babies-a-guide-for-parents-web.pdf.
  • 19.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NICE. Postnatal care [M] Benefits and harms of bed sharing: NICE guideline NG194 London, England: NICE; 2021. [Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng194/evidence/m-benefits-and-harms-of-bed-sharing-pdf-326764485977. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Norwegian SIDS and Stillbirth Society. Safe sleep for babies Oslo, Norway2021 [Available from: https://lub.no/getfile.php/132204-1639060586/Materiell/Brosjyrer/Safe%20sleep%20for%20babies.pdf.
  • 21.Red Nose National Scientific Advisory Group. Information Statement: Cosleeping with your baby 2021 [Available from: https://rednose.org.au/article/Co-sleeping_with_your_baby.
  • 22.Sattari M, Levine DM, Mramba LK, Pina M, Raukas R, Rouw E, et al. Physician mothers and breastfeeding: a cross-sectional survey. Breastfeeding Medicine. 2020;15(5):312–20. doi: 10.1089/bfm.2019.0193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fein SB, Labiner-Wolfe J, Shealy KR, Li R, Chen J, Grummer-Strawn LM. Infant feeding practices study II: study methods. Pediatrics. 2008;122(Supplement_2):S28–S35. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-1315c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shulman HB, D’Angelo DV, Harrison L, Smith RA, Warner L. The pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system (PRAMS): overview of design and methodology. American journal of public health. 2018;108(10):1305–13. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304563 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Meek JY, Noble L. Technical Report: Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk. Pediatrics. 2022;150(1). doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-057989 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Schaeffer P, Asnes AG. What do pediatricians tell parents about bed-sharing? Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2018;22:51–8. doi: 10.1007/s10995-017-2353-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. SIDS and other sleep-related infant deaths: updated 2016 recommendations for a safe infant sleeping environment. Pediatrics. 2016;138(5):e20162938. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-2938 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Editorial Board. Infant death and DCFS: Is unsafe sleep abusive?: Chicago Tribune; 2017. [Available from: https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-cosleep-dcfs-child-abuse-20171116-story.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.McKenna JJ, Gettler LT. There is no such thing as infant sleep, there is no such thing as breastfeeding, there is only breastsleeping. Acta paediatrica. 2016;105(1):17–21. doi: 10.1111/apa.13161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ball HL, Tomori C, McKenna JJ. Toward an integrated anthropology of infant sleep. American Anthropologist. 2019;121(3):595–612. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ball H. Parent-infant bed-sharing behavior. Human Nature. 2006;17(3):301–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mosko S, Richard C, McKenna J. Maternal sleep and arousals during bedsharing with infants. Sleep. 1997;20(2):142–50. doi: 10.1093/sleep/20.2.142 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mosko S, Richard C, McKenna J. Infant arousals during mother-infant bed sharing: implications for infant sleep and sudden infant death syndrome research. Pediatrics. 1997;100(5):841–9. doi: 10.1542/peds.100.5.841 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.McKenna JJ, Mosko SS, Richard CA. Bedsharing promotes breastfeeding. Pediatrics. 1997;100(2):214–9. doi: 10.1542/peds.100.2.214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Callen J, Pinelli J. Incidence and duration of breastfeeding for term infants in Canada, United States, Europe, and Australia: a literature review. Birth. 2004;31(4):285–92. doi: 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2004.00321.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kitano N, Nomura K, Kido M, Murakami K, Ohkubo T, Ueno M, et al. Combined effects of maternal age and parity on successful initiation of exclusive breastfeeding. Preventive medicine reports. 2016;3:121–6. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.12.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Linglin Xie

17 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-16782Bedsharing among breastfeeding physicians: Results of a nationwide surveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Louis‐Jacques,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 31 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

you are come up with interesting title which creates a dilemma between d/t scholars. because some argue that bedsharing is important while others not. Additionally, your write up is smart however your paper have the following gaps:_

1.Your summary doesn't contain introduction part which is not appropriate way

2.your objective is not SMART which is not measurable .The verb you use not measurable.

3.You only use 3 kye words which is below standard.

4.Your methodology didn't go with your objective because your objective is to understand and to investigate the reason why bedsharing is high or low which is qualitative data. your study design didn't go with survival model. where is your follow up time?? Also your sample size determination and procedure is not clear?? how you select 806 physician respondents or if you incorporate all physicians is there only 806 physicians in USA?? Think over?? Why you include only single birth only?

5.result: you didn't make model fitness test, multicollinearity test and other important components were not performed

6 . what will be your interpretation of your outcome variable is it low or high requires justification??

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Tamiru Alene,department of pediatrics and child health nursing,injibara univesity

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Aug 1;19(8):e0305625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305625.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


19 Feb 2024

January 15, 2024

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-16782

Manuscript Title: Bedsharing among breastfeeding physicians: Results of a nationwide survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Linglin Xie,

On behalf of my co-authors and myself, I would like to thank you and our reviewer for the prompt and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. Attached, please find original comments and our responses. We are truly sorry for the delay in our response.

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, you are come up with interesting title which creates a dilemma between d/t scholars. because some argue that bedsharing is important while others not. Additionally, your write up is smart however your paper have the following gaps:

1. Your summary doesn't contain introduction part which is not appropriate way

Authors Response: Thank you very much. We have included an introduction in the abstract.

2. your objective is not SMART which is not measurable. The verb you use not measurable.

Authors Response: The objective in the abstract has been modified to be measurable. Thank you for this comment.

3. You only use 3 kye words which is below standard.

Authors Response: Thank you, we have increased the number of key words to 5 - breast feeding, lactation, sleeping habits, postpartum period, physicians.

4. Methodology

a. Your methodology didn't go with your objective because your objective is to understand and to investigate the reason why bedsharing is high or low which is qualitative data. your study design didn't go with survival model. where is your follow up time??

Authors Response: Studying the association between bedsharing and breastfeeding duration was one of the objectives. This outcome was a time-to-event variable with right censoring, so we elected to conduct time-to-event (survival) analysis. The follow-up time was the time from birth to the end of breastfeeding. Some participants were still breastfeeding when they took the survey, and these participants were censored. I can see why using a KM curve seems odd given that we did not follow a cohort of individuals, but rather surveyed responses at one time to determine "survival of breastfeeding" given bedsharing practice. The cross-sectional survey allowed retrospective data collection of time for a survival analysis.

The reasons for bedsharing were collected in the survey not as qualitative data. This was a secondary objective and was reported in table 5 to better understand the reasons for bedsharing or not bedsharing.

b. Also, your sample size determination and procedure is not clear?? how you select 806 physician respondents or if you incorporate all physicians is there only 806 physicians in USA?? Think over??

Authors Response: This is a cross sectional study design using a convenience sample of physicians who responded to the invitation to survey. We recruited as many participants as possible through 2 closed Facebook groups (Dr. MILK and Physician Moms Group) and Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine listserv. Recruitment was through social media platforms and by email listservs targeting breastfeeding physicians from October 2020 through July 2021.

c. Why you include only single birth only?

Authors Response: Multiples were excluded since that may confound the probability of breastfeeding continuation.

5.result: you didn't make model fitness test, multicollinearity test and other important components were not performed

We used Cox proportional hazards modeling in analyses. It is recommended that most people in a time-to-event analysis have the event observed, and in this study 73.1% had ceased breastfeeding by the time of the survey. Cox proportional hazards models are semi-parametric models that are widely used for time-to-event analyses because they do not require modeling the baseline hazard. The primary assumption in Cox proportional hazards model is that the hazard is proportional between the two comparison groups over time. The proportionality assumption was tested by the Schoenfeld residual test with global p = 0.061 on complete data, and Schoenfeld residual scaled plot. Both results showed the proportionality assumption was not violated. We also assessed the proportionality assumption for each covariate and found that it was not violated."

Table 1 Schoenfeld residual individual test result

variable Individual p value

bedsharing 0.596

race 0.861

ethnicity 0.955

Marital status 0.763

Trainee status 0.619

specialty 0.090

Birth year 2005 0.051

Depression 0.115

Figure 1 Scaled Schoenfeld residual plot (please see attached response document)

We adjusted for medical specialty, trainee status, race, Hispanic ethnicity, self-reported postpartum depression, and infant birth year before or after 2005 in the Cox proportional hazards regression. We did not have reason to suspect multicollinearity between these confounders and these were categorical or binary variables. Cox proportional hazards models are not ordinary least squares models and the confounders being categorical precludes a calculation of variation inflation factors as quantitative assessments of collinearity test.

6 . what will be your interpretation of your outcome variable is it low or high requires justification??

Authors Response: Thank you very much for this comment. We have expanded on this in the first paragraph of our discussion section.

Lines 249-253: “We found bedsharing was common among breastfeeding physicians consistent with our hypothesis, including physicians in specialties caring for women/mothers and/or infants. Also consistent with previous literature in the general population and our hypothesis, bedsharing is associated with longer duration of breastfeeding among physicians. There was a greater than 40% HR decrease for breastfeeding cessation.”

One would expect physicians to be among the most compliant groups to follow the AAP guidelines, given their type of work in the healthcare sector, and the fact that many are expected to counsel on this guideline as part of their job. This finding demonstrates that the recommendations are not consistent with the lived experiences of the physicians in our sample.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Bedsharing Reviewers Comments and Responses.docx

pone.0305625.s005.docx (187.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Linglin Xie

4 Jun 2024

Bedsharing among breastfeeding physicians: Results of a nationwide survey

PONE-D-23-16782R1

Dear Dr. Louis-Jacques,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Linglin Xie

23 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-16782R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Louis‐Jacques,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. STROBE statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0305625.s001.docx (20.4KB, docx)
    S1 Appendix. Physician mothers/birthing people infant feeding and sleep survey.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0305625.s002.docx (29.5KB, docx)
    S2 Appendix. Cox proportional hazards modeling.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0305625.s003.docx (171.7KB, docx)
    S1 Dataset. Survey dataset.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0305625.s004.xlsx (194.2KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Bedsharing Reviewers Comments and Responses.docx

    pone.0305625.s005.docx (187.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES