Peer-reviewed article
Parental Acceptability and Experiences of In-Bed Resuscitation at Birth: Findings From a Cross-Sectional Survey.
Wilander M, Thies-Lagergren L, Santesson A, Patriksson K, Rabe H et al. ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This study surveyed parents of newborns who participated in a trial comparing in-bed resuscitation (where the baby stays with parents during initial care) versus standard resuscitation care. Parents whose babies received in-bed resuscitation reported significantly more opportunities for physical contact, a stronger sense of safety, and more positive views of their participation in the study. The findings suggest that keeping newborns with parents during emergency care has psychological benefits for families without affecting communication with healthcare staff.
Key points
- Parents in the in-bed resuscitation group reported nearly 4 times greater physical contact with their newborn (OR 3.88) compared to standard care
- In-bed resuscitation group expressed stronger sense of safety and more positive perceptions of study participation
- No differences observed in communication with healthcare professionals between groups
- Response rate was approximately 75% with 333 completed surveys, mostly from mothers
- Study suggests psychosocial benefits of zero-separation practices during neonatal resuscitation
Limitations
The study only measures parental perception and acceptability, not clinical outcomes or safety of the intervention itself. The response came predominantly from mothers, so paternal or other caregiver perspectives are underrepresented.
Abstract
Objective To assess parental acceptability and experiences of in-bed intact cord resuscitation (ICR) vs standard care during neonatal resuscitation in the Sustained Cord Circulation and Ventilation (SAVE) trial. Study design A national cross-sectional electronic survey was administered 1 month postpartum (2022-2025). A questionnaire initially developed by Katheria et al was used to assess parental acceptability and experiences of ICR. The survey targeted parents of neonates enrolled in the SAVE trial, a randomized controlled trial investigating ICR for ≥180 seconds with standard care. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Acceptability was compared between groups using χ2 tests, with ORs calculated to quantify effect size. Results The response rate was ∼75% and the final analyses included 333 surveys. Most responses were received from mothers. Parents experiencing in-bed ICR reported greater opportunities to see, touch, and maintain proximity to their neonate (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 2.32-6.48, for physical contact). The in-bed ICR group also expressed a stronger sense of safety and more positive perceptions of study participation compared with those whose neonates received standard care. No differences between the groups were observed in communication with healthcare professionals. Baseline maternal, perinatal, and neonatal characteristics were comparable between the groups. Conclusions These findings demonstrate the psychosocial benefits of in-bed ICR, enhancing parental proximity, safety perceptions, and physical contact during neonatal resuscitation and stabilization. These results provide a vital parental perspective that complements clinical outcomes and supports future considerations of zero-separation practices for resuscitated neonates.