• No results found

Adolescent Gestational Weight Gain and Birth Weight

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "Adolescent Gestational Weight Gain and Birth Weight"

Copied!
7
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Adolescent

Gestational

Weight

Gain

and

Birth

Weight

Catherine Stevens-Simon, MDX; Elizabeth R. McAnarney, MD*; and Klaus

J.

Roghmann, PhD*

ABSTRACT. Objective. To examine the relationship

among maternal age, prepregnancy weight, gestational weight gain, and birth weight in 141 low-income black adolescents and their infants.

Study sample. One hundred forty-one consecutively

enrolled, low-income, black adolescents who entered

pre-natal care prior to their 23rd week of gestation, were free of chronic diseases, took no regular medications, had no

known uterine anomalies, and gave birth to one live

neonate.

Results. After controlling for prepregnancy weight

and other potentially confounding variables, we found a significant relationship between gestational weight gain and infant birth weight among younger adolescents (<16

years old at conception), but not among older adolescents

(16 through 19 years old at conception); younger adoles-cents contributed more of their gestational weight gain to their fetuses than did older adolescents. Among younger adolescents the rate of maternal weight gain during the

entire gestation was significantly correlated with birth

weight (r = .40; P < .01), whereas for older adolescents only maternal weight gain during the second half of

ges-tation was significantly correlated with birth weight

(r = .25, P < .05).

Conclusions. The data do not support the thesis that

younger adolescents compete with their fetuses for

nu-trients; in fact, younger study adolescents transferred more of their gestational weight gain to their fetuses than

did older adolescents. Pediatrics 199392:805.-809; adoles-cents, gestational weight gain, birth weight, pregnancy.

ABBREVIATION. NCPP, National Collaborative Perinatal Project.

Maternal weight gain during pregnancy

(gesta-tional weight gain) is a particularly important

deter-minant of the birth weight of infants of adolescents. The total amount of gestational weight gain needed to ensure optimal fetal growth during adolescent preg-nancy, however, is disputed?5 Gestational weight gain is especially important for small women, for

whom the optimal weight gain exceeds that for large

women.6 Young pregnant adolescents are usually smaller than are older women; that is, they often have lower prepregnancy weights and are shorter.5 Al-though smaller adults transfer more of their gesta-tional weight gain to their fetuses than do larger women,7 it has been reported that younger adoles-cents (although smaller) transfer less of their

gesta-From the *Divisions of Adolescent Medicine and Ceneral Pediatrics, Uni-versity of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; and Division of

Ado-lescent Medicine, University of Colorado Health Science Center, Denver. Received for publication Mar 1, 1993; accepted Jun 3, 1993.

Reprints not available.

PEDIATRICS (ISSN 0031 4005). Copyright © 1993 by the American Aced-emy of Pediatrics.

tional weight gain to their fetuses because they are

still growing and compete with their fetuses for

nu-trients.3

The pattern of gestational weight gain is also im-portant. During the first haif of gestation, most ges-tational weight gain goes to the mother; inadequate weight gain during this time may compromise the development of the uteroplacental vascular bed.8

During the second half of gestation, most gestational

weight gain is contributed to the fetus. Among

well-nourished females, weight gain during the second

haif of gestation is the most important determinant of

infant birth weight. Among small or undernourished

women in developing countries, however, the small size of their infants has been associated with

mad-equate weight gain during the first half of gestation.

We question whether young adolescents are similar to

these women in underdeveloped countries as they are small and some may be relatively undernourished.#{176}

This study focuses on the relationship of maternal age, prepregnancy weight, gestational weight gain, and birth weight in an adolescent population.

HYPOTHESES

1. Younger adolescents (<16 years old) transfer less gestational weight gain to their fetuses than do older adolescents (16 through 19 years old) when confounding variables are controlled.

2. The rate of gestational weight gain during the first

half of pregnancy is more predictive of birth weight for the infants of younger adolescents than for the infants of older adolescents.

Subjects

METhODS

The data were collected as part of the Rochester Study of Ado-lescent Pregnancy, a 3-year prospective study conducted between 1986 and I989.h113 jj[ study subjects were consecutively enrolled and entered prenatal care prior to their 23rd week of gestation, were free of chronic diseases, took no regular medications, had no known uterine anomalies, and gave birth to one live newborn. All

study subjects were black and low-income (Hollingshead N or

V)14; the majority (88%) were primiparous. Thus, the relationship of gestational weight gain to neonatal outcome was studied in a healthy, well-cared-for population. Extreme care was directed to-ward standardizing all data collection, particularly the anthropo-metric data.

There were 169 consecutive adolescent subjects (<20 years of age at conception) who entered the study. Of the 169, 141 (83.4%) completed the entire study protocol. There were no significant differences in mean maternal age, socioeconomic status, school completion, and parity between the study subjects (n = 141) and those who left the study prior to delivery (n = 28). The study protocol was approved by the Committee on Investigations In-volving Human Subjects at the University of Rochester Medical Center.

at Viet Nam:AAP Sponsored on September 1, 2020

www.aappublications.org/news

(2)

Data Collection

Details of the procedures for data collection have been pub-lished previously.’3

Maternal Age. Maternal chronologic age at conception defined as the difference in years between the date of the last menstrual period and the mother’s date of birth.

Prepregnancy Weight. Prepregnancy weight was determined by mothers’ report of prepregnancy weight corroborated by school and/or medical records.’2

Gestational Weight Gain. Maternal weight was measured to the nearest 10th of a kilogram on a balance-beam scale at each prenatal visit.’2 The first weight was determined at enrollment into prenatal care and the last, at approximately I week prior to delivery.

Neonatal Outcome. Birth weight was measured within I hour of delivery; the neonates were weighed naked to the nearest 10th of a gram on a balance scale. Gestational age was calculated from the date of the mother’s last menstrual period by use of Naegele’s rule’5 and was verified by ultrasound and Dubowitz examina-tions.’6 A preterm infant was defined as an infant born prior to the 37th week of gestation.’7

Potentially Confounding Variables. Psychosocial, dietary, and health habits were elicited from interviews and standardized methods.

1. Psychosocial data: Data on socioeconomic status; living ar-rangements; family and peer relationships; personal, behav-ioral, school, and legal problems; stress (Newton’s 24-item ver-sion of the Cochrane and Robertson Life Events Scale); and a constructed variable of total number of environmental

stress-ors’8 and depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depres-sion Scale, the CES-D Scale)’9 were obtained both early and late in pregnancy.

2. Dietary habits: A dietitian inquired about cooking facilities, food availability, eating habits, and intake of specific nutrients twice during pregnancy.2#{176}

3. Health habits: Adequacy of prenatal care,2’ level of daily

activ-ity and exercise pattern, and substance use (seff-reported ciga-rette smoking, alcohol, and illicit drug use verified by urine testing for nicotine and commonly abused illicit drugs) were examined.

The occurrence of obstetric complications (such as pregnancy-induced hypertension, vaginal bleeding, and premature rupture of membranes) and medical problems (such as sexually transmitted diseases, anemia, and viral syndromes) was recorded throughout gestation.

Data Analysis

Total gestational weight gain was defined as the difference between the last weight of pregnancy and the prepregnancy weight. Because the duration of gestation affects both birth weight and gestational weight gain, total weight gain was “adjusted”

(standardized) to a 40-week gestational period by use of the

fol-lowing formula: actual weight gain plus (the average weekly weight gain after 26 weeks’ gestation times the difference in weeks between 40 weeks and weeks of gestation at delivery). The rate of “actual” weight gain per week of gestation was also calculated.

Both measures, the “adjusted” total gestational weight gain and the “actual” rate of gestational weight gain per week, were used in the analyses.

Individual patterns of weight gain were determined from

graphs on which individual maternal weight determinants were

plotted against gestational age. Weights extrapolated from these

graphs were used to calculate gestational weight gain during the

first and second halves of gestation.

Summary statistics were calculated for the range, distributions, means, and variances of all variables. Age was used primarily as a categorical variable, contrasting data of younger adolescents (<16 years old) and older adolescents (16 through 19 years old).

Independent t test and tests were used to test for differences

between these two age groups. Within each of these two age groups, and within the combined total sample, hierarchical regres-sions were used to estimate effect sizes of maternal variables on infant variables (birth weight and gestational age) and test them for significance. Maternal prepregnancy weight and age were in-troduced as the first step. All potentially confounding variables, that is, factors that were significantly correlated with birth weight, were introduced in step 2 (these included stress, urinary tract infections, toxemia, and premature rupture of membranes). Maternal weight gain was introduced in step 3.

RESULTS

Summary data on the background variables,

con-founding variables, gestational weight gain variables,

and infant outcome variables are presented in Table I. There were significant differences in the maternal age and prepregnancy weight of the younger and older adolescents. There were no significant differ-ences in confounding variables between younger and older adolescents. The mean “adjusted” total gesta-tional weight gain did not differ for the younger and older adolescents. The mean birth weight and mean

gestational age of the infants of younger adolescents

and older adolescents did not differ.

As shown in Table 2, a hierarchical regression

model was computed separately for the data of the 52 younger and the 89 older adolescents and their in-fants. When entered in step 1, prepregnancy weight was not a significant predictor of the birth weight of the infants of younger adolescents, but it was for the

TABLE 1. Summary Statistics for Key Variables*

Variables Younger

Adolescents (n =52)

Older Adolescents

(n= 89)

Total Sample (n = 141)

P

Background

Maternal age, y 14.6 (0.9) 17.6 (1.1) 16.5 (1.8) t

Prepregnancy wt, kg 59.4 (10.6) 62.8 (14.1) 61.5 (13.0) t

Confounding

Stress, % 31.7 27.3 29.0 NS

UTIs, % 1.9 4.5 3.5 N5

Toxemia, % 1.9 3.4 2.8 NS

PROM, % 9.6 13.5 12.1 NS

Cestational wt gain

“Adjusted” total gain, kg 14.9 (5.9) 13.9 (6.0) 14.3 (6.0) NS

Weekly rate, g 362 (150) 341 (152) 349 (151) NS

Infant outcome

Birth wt, g 3110 (595) 3116 (538) 3114 (558) NS

Gestation, wk 38.6 (2.8) 38.7 (2.2) 38.7 (2.4) NS

*Values represent mean (SD) or percent. Abbreviations: UTI, urinary tract infection; PROM, premature rupture of membranes; NS, not significant.

t P < .05, difference between younger adolescents and older adolescents.

at Viet Nam:AAP Sponsored on September 1, 2020

www.aappublications.org/news

(3)

TABLE 2. Regression of Birth Weight and Maternal Variables* Birth We B ight, g SE P

Younger adolescents (n = 52)

Step I

Maternal age, y 25.8 10.3 NS

Prepregnancy wt, kg 11.4 8.0 NS

Step 2

Stress -545.7 279.9 .06

UTIs -233.0 609.8 NS

Toxemia 55.4 585.1 NS

PROM -184.2 266.5 NS

Step 3: “Adjusted” total wt gain, 38.2 14.1 .009

g/kg

Older adolescents (n = 89) Step 1

Age, y 54.0 43.1 NS

Prepregnancy wt, kg 9.9 3.5 .05

Step 2

Stress -120.6 179.7 NS

UTIs -773.0 253.7 .003

Toxemia -984.1 256.4 .000

PROM -344.5 140.7 .02

Step 3: “Adjusted” total wt gain, 5.6 7.9 NS

g/kg Total sample

Step I

Age, y 16.2 24.4 NS

Prepregnancy wt, kg 10.4 3.3 .002

Step 2

Stress -317.3 151.0 .04

UTIs -561.3 236.5 .02

Toxemia -736.1 252.1 .004

PROM -303.2 129.5 .02

Step 3: “Adjusted” total wt gain, 18.1 7.0 .01

g/kg

*U-fl, urinary tract infection; PROM, premature rupture of mem-branes; NS, not significant.

infants of older adolescents. In step 2, most of the

confounding medical variables did not have strong

effects on the birth weight of the infants of younger

adolescents, but had strong effects on the birth weight

of the infants of older adolescents. The confounding psychosocial variable “stress” had a nearly significant impact on the birth weight of the infants of younger adolescents, but not on that of the infants of older

adolescents. In step 3, there was a significant and

strong effect of “adjusted” total weight gain on birth weight for younger adolescents (38.2 g/kg weight

gain; SE = 14.1, P < .009), but not for older adolescents

(5.6 g/kg weight gain; SE = 7.9, not significant). The

first hypothesis that younger adolescents transfer less

gestational weight gain to their infants than do older

adolescents, therefore, was refuted. A hierarchical

re-gression model was also computed substituting

ges-TABLE 3. Correlations Between Rate of W per Week) and Birth Weight

eight Gain (Grams

Birth Weight Younger adolescents (n = 52)

Rate of total weight gain Weight gain (1st half of pregnancy) Weight gain (2nd half of pregnancy) Older adolescents (n = 89)

Rate of total weight gain Weight gain (1st half of pregnancy) Weight gain (2nd half of pregnancy)

.40k .24 .22 .20 .03 .25t

*Significant at P < .01 (two-tailed).t Significant at P < .05

(two-tailed).

tational age for birth weight. There was no significant

relationship among prepregnancy weight, gestational weight gain, and gestational age.

Zero-order correlations between the rate of

gesta-tional weight gain and birth weight are presented in

Table 3. Gestational weight gain during the entire

pregnancy (rate of total weight gain) was significantly

correlated with the birth weight of the infants of younger adolescents, but not with the birth weight of

the infants of older adolescents. Only the rate of

ges-tational weight gain in the second half of pregnancy

was significantly correlated with the birth weight of

the infants of older adolescents. Thus, hypothesis 2 is partially supported; the rate of gestational weight gain during the entire pregnancy was the best

pre-dictor of the birth weight of infants of younger

ado-lescents. The rate of gestational weight gain did not correlate significantly with gestational age among

ei-ther younger or older adolescents.

DISCUSSION

Both younger and older black adolescents in this

study had adequate prepregnancy weights, had

ad-equate gestational weight gains, and had average-size

infants (Table 4). As a group, the adolescent mothers’

mean prepregnancy weight was 61.5 kg, their mean

gestational weight gain was 14.3 kg, and the mean

birth weight of their infants was 3114 g. All study

adolescents received adequate and sustained prenatal

care.

There was an increase of 38.2 g of birth weight for each kilogram of “adjusted” total weight gained by younger adolescents compared with an increase of 5.6 g for each kilogram gained by older adolescents when we controlled for significant confounding variables.

This was a surprising finding, as on the basis of

pre-vious studies in the literature, we hypothesized that younger adolescents would contribute less of their gestational weight gain (rather than more of their

ges-TABLE 4. Maternal Size, Gestational Weight Gain, and Birth Weight: Rochester and NCPP Studies*

Rochester (1986-1989) NCPP (1959-1965)

<16y I6Throughl9 y <16y l6Throughl9y

Prepregnancy wt, kg 59.4 ± 10.6 62.8 ± 14.1

Height, cm 160.1 ± 6.3 162.8 ± 6.8

Gestational wt gain, kg 14.9 ± 5.9 13.9 ± 6.Ot

Birth wt, g 3110 ± 595 3116 ± 538

54.3 57.4

159.3 160.9

10.3 9.8

2954.2 2982.8

*Data are from black adolescents only and represent mean ± Perinatal Project.t Adjusted for length of gestation.

SD. NCPP, National Collaborative

at Viet Nam:AAP Sponsored on September 1, 2020

www.aappublications.org/news

(4)

1. Stevens-Simon C, McAnarney ER. Adolescent maternal weight gain and low birthweight: a multifactorial modeL Am JClin Nutr. 1988;47:948-953

2. Horon IL, Strobino DM, MacDonald HM. Birth weights among infants

born to adolescent and young adult women. Am IObstet Gynecol. 1983; 146:444-449

3. Naeye RL. Teenaged and pre-teenaged pregnancies: consequences of the fetal-maternal competition for nutrients. Pediatrics. 198L67:146-150

4. Frisancho AR, Mates J, Flegel P. Maternal nutritional status and ado-lescent pregnancy outcome. Am IClin Nutr. 198330:739-746

5. Cam SM, Petzold AS. Characteristics of the mother and child in teenage pregnancy. AJDC. 1983;137:365-368

6. Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of

Sciences. Nutrition During Pregnancy. Washington, DC: National Acad-emy Press; 1990

7. Winikoff B, Debrouner CH. Anthropometric determinants of birth weight. Obstet Gynecol. 198158:678-.684

8. Rosso P. Nutrition and maternal fetal exchange. Am IClin Nutr. 1981;

34:744-755

9. Susser M. Prenatal nutrition, birthweight, and psychological

development: an overview of experiments, quasi-experiments, and

tational weight gain) to their infants than did older adolescents.3’4 It has been hypothesized by others that

younger adolescents compete with their fetuses for

nutrients because the younger adolescents are smaller

and may still be growing. We found no evidence of

this “competition for nutrients” premise from our

data.

Since the data supporting the “competition for

nu-trients” theory was from a substudy of the National

Collaborative Perinatal Project (NCPP), we compared

the anthropometric data of the mothers and their in-fants from that study with data from our study.5 We found differences in the mean prepregnancy weight,

gestational weight gain, and mean birth weight when we compared the data of the youngest adolescents

and their infants from each study. As noted in Table 4, younger Rochester adolescents were

approxi-mately 5.1 kg heavier when they became pregnant

and gained approximately 4.6 kg more during

ges-tation than did the younger adolescents in the NCPP

group. The infants of the younger Rochester adoles-cents were approximately 156 g heavier than were the

infants of the younger NCPP mothers.

Younger Rochester adolescents, because of their relatively greater prepregnancy weight in contrast to the younger NCPP adolescents, may function more

like “small” adults than as undergrown adolescents. That is, the Rochester and the NCPP populations were

anthropometrically different when they entered their

pregnancies. Nearly 30 years have intervened,

how-ever, between the performance of these two studies

and we know adolescents in general are larger today than they were in past decades. Thirty years ago, younger, smaller adolescents may have indeed

com-peted with their fetuses for nutrients.3’4

The anthropometric determinants of birth weight

for both Rochester younger and older adolescents

were nearly identical with those reported for a group

of healthy, middle-upper socioeconomic status adults

bearing infants of greater than 38 weeks’ gestation.7

The younger, smaller Rochester adolescents

de-pended on their gestational weight gain to nourish

their fetuses, much as did the adults who were “low weight-for-height” for whom gestationalweight gain,

and not prepregnancy weight, was significantly

cor-related with birth weight (partial correlation = .291,

P < .01). In contrast, the older, heavier Rochester

ado-lescents depended on their prepregnancy weight to

nourish their fetuses much as did the adults who were

“medium weight-for-height,” for whom

prepreg-nancy weight, and not gestational weight gain, was

significantly correlated with birth weight (partial

cor-relation = .313, P < .01). Thus, both the younger Roch-ester adolescents and the low weight-for-height adults who start pregnancy smaller are more likely to rely on their gestational weight gain to nourish their

infants rather than on their pregnancy weight; in

con-trast, both the older Rochester adolescents and the

medium weight-for-height adults who start

preg-nancy larger are more likely to rely on their

prepreg-nancy weight to nourish their infants.

The younger Rochester adolescents also depended on their weight gain throughout pregnancy and not

just during the second half of pregnancy. In part, this

may be in an effort in the first half of gestation to make

up for their smaller prepregnancy size as weight gain early in pregnancy is more likely to go to the mother. The importance of nutrition throughout pregnancy for the fetus of the younger adolescent also suggests the need for nutritional intervention early in

preg-nancy and for close attention to the nutritional status

of younger adolescents throughout the gestation. Even though adolescents today begin their

pregnan-des better nourished than they did in the 1960s, they

still may not reap the maximal benefit from

nutri-tional programs initiated late in gestation.

The Rochester study adolescents were

well-nourished and entered prenatal care early and

at-tended consistently. We were most likely studying a group of healthy adolescents who start pregnancy

small, but well-nourished. Conditions were ideal to

investigate the ultimate ability of even the youngest adolescents to provide their fetuses nutrients and to

protect their fetuses against possible biologic and/or

psychosocial stressors. There were stringent medical exclusion criteria so we were able to investigate the

pure relationship between gestational weight gain

and neonatal outcome independent of issues relating to access to care and major prenatal complications. Even the youngest adolescents who received ad-equate prenatal care were able to nourish their fetuses efficiently and effectively.

It is known that the greatest effect of prenatal care on birth weight occurs in the youngest

adoles-cents.24’ Perhaps the effects of prenatal care are

me-diated through better nutrition and better gestational

weight gain for the youngest adolescents that is then

contributed to the fetus, resulting in improved birth

weight. Since all our study subjects were low-income

black adolescents, the data cannot be generalized to other groups.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence to support the thesis that

well-nourished, younger black adolescents competed

with their fetuses for nutrients. Weight gain through-out gestation was important for the outcome of these

infants of these younger mothers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the Bureau of Maternal and Child

Health (Resources and Development grant MCJ-360534).

(5)

natural experiments in the past decade. AmJ Clin Nutr. 198134:784-803 10. Lederman SA. Physiological changes of pregnancy and their relation to

nutrient needs. In: Winick M, ed. Feeding the Mother and Infant. New

York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1985:13-43

11. Stevens-Simon C, McAnarney ER. Subfecundity: a prenatal risk factor

for adults but not for adolescents. JAdolesc Health Care. 1990;11:432-436 12. Stevens-Simon C, Roghmann KJ, McAnarney ER. Relationship of

self-reported prepregnant weight and weight gain during pregnancy and

relationship to body habitus and maternal age. JAm Diet Assoc. 1992;

92:85-87

13. Stevens-Simon C, Roghxnann KJ, McAnarney ER. Early vaginal

bleed-ing, late prenatal care, and misdating in adolescent pregnancy. Ped

fat-rics. 1991;87:838-840

14. Hollingshead AB. Four factor index of social dass. New Haven, CT: Yale University; 1976. Unpublished manuscript

15. Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Cant NF, eds. Williams Obstetrics. 18th ed. Norwalk, CT: Appleton Lange; 1989:741

16. Dubowitz LMS, DUbOWitZ V, Goldberg C. Clinical assessment of

ges-tational age in the newborn infant. I Pediatr. 1970;77:1-10

17. Committee to Study the Prevention of Low Birthweight, Division of

Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine.

Pre-venting Low Birthweight. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1985

18. Newton RW, Webster PAC, Binu PS, Maskrey N, Phillips AB.

Psycho-social stress in pregnancy and its relation to the onset of premature labour. Br Med J.1979;2:411-413

19. Radloff L The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale forresearch in the general population. I Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1:385-401

20. Block C. A review of validations of dietary assessment methods. Am I Epidemol. 1982;115:492-505

21. Kessner DM, Singer J, Kalk CE. Infant death: an analysis by maternal

risk and health care. In: Contrasts in Health Status. Washington, DC:

National Academy of Sciences; 1973:59

22. Hingson R, Zuckerman B, Amaro H, et al. Maternal marijuana use and neonatal outcome: uncertainty posed by self-report. Am IPublic Health.

1986;76:667-669

23. Hoff C, Wertelecki W, Zansky 5, Reyes E, Dutt J, Stumpe A. Earlier maturation of pregnant black and white adolescents. AJDC. 1985;139: 981-986

24. Felice ME, Granados JL, Ances IC, et al. The young pregnant teenager: impact of comprehensive prenatal care. I Adolesc Health Care. 1981;1:

193-197

25. Olds DL, Henderson CR, Tatelbaum R, et aL Improving the delivery of

prenatal care and outcomes of pregnancy: a randomized trial of nurse

home visitation. Pediatrics. 1986;77:16-28

INFANT BONDING: A BOGUS NOTION?

The saga of bonding begins in 1972. . . with a study in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study looked at 14 mothers who were given 16 extra hours of

contact with their infants right after birth. The scientists argued that these mothers

later showed better mothering skills than mothers who had not had the contact. The study also asserted that the “bonded” infants did better than their baby peers on some developmental tests...

In addition, the original study-on which dozens were modeled-was poorly

constructed. There was no attempt to measure hormones or any other biological

phenomena, both factors that were central to the scientists’ theory. Then there was

the matter of measuring better mothering. There were only a few measures (four

out of 75) in which the bonded group of 14 mothers got better scores. And the higher scores for certain behaviors were quite subjective: they included standing close to the child in a pediatric exam, or a mother’s not enjoying leaving the house

without her baby during the first month...

By the early 1980s, studies of the bonding of mothers and their newborns had

been dismissed by much of the scientific community. Bonding nevertheless

re-mained a tenet of our society. It is, for example, officially recognized by most

hospitals, which routinely place the baby in the mother’s arms for a few minutes

after birth.

Ms. Eyer, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, is author of “Mother-Infant Bonding: A scientific Fiction,” to be published by Yale University Press in January [19931.

Eyer D. Infant bonding: a bogus notion. The Wall Street Journal. November 24, 1992.

Noted by J.F.L., MD

at Viet Nam:AAP Sponsored on September 1, 2020

www.aappublications.org/news

(6)

1993;92;805

Pediatrics

Catherine Stevens-Simon, Elizabeth R. MCAnarney and Klaus J. Roghmann

Adolescent Gestational Weight Gain and Birth Weight

Services

Updated Information &

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/92/6/805

including high resolution figures, can be found at:

Permissions & Licensing

http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtml

entirety can be found online at:

Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or in its

Reprints

http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml

Information about ordering reprints can be found online:

at Viet Nam:AAP Sponsored on September 1, 2020

www.aappublications.org/news

(7)

1993;92;805

Pediatrics

Catherine Stevens-Simon, Elizabeth R. MCAnarney and Klaus J. Roghmann

Adolescent Gestational Weight Gain and Birth Weight

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/92/6/805

the World Wide Web at:

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on

American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 1073-0397.

American Academy of Pediatrics, 345 Park Avenue, Itasca, Illinois, 60143. Copyright © 1993 by the

been published continuously since 1948. Pediatrics is owned, published, and trademarked by the

Pediatrics is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly publication, it has

at Viet Nam:AAP Sponsored on September 1, 2020

www.aappublications.org/news

References

Related documents

Combinatorial testing (CT) is expected to reduce the cost and improve the quality of software testing [16]. Given a test model consisting of a list of parameter-values and

In this study, we found strong evidence for an erosion of methylation over time for CpGs associated with the promoter regions of several imprinted genes such as GABRB3 and ZNF264

In this paper, it is presented a VRP model for highly perishable foods, which includes a heterogeneous vehicle fleet, the fixed cost of transport, the variable cost per

B3 Finite Element Model and Simulation Setup B4 Process Simulation and Result Evaluation B5 Advanced Simulation Techniques Practical Laboratory Internship.. B2 Laboratory

The challenge lies in assessing the impact of these drivers, how they relate to each other, and whether they have the potential to create new self-reinforcing feedbacks

It is demonstrated that: (1) the resulting feature descriptors become more distinctive and more robust to camera viewpoint changes after the pro- cedure of 3D viewpoint

A newly released Working Paper by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) provides an overview of projected climate change impacts on