Co-bedding as a Comfort measure For Twins undergoing painful procedures (CComForT Trial)

Women's and Newborn Health Program, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
BMC Pediatrics (Impact Factor: 1.93). 12/2009; 9(1). DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-9-76
Source: DOAJ


Co-bedding, a developmental care strategy, is the practice of caring for diaper clad twins in one incubator (versus separating and caring for each infant in separate incubators), thus creating the opportunity for skin-to-skin contact and touch between the twins. In studies of mothers and their infants, maternal skin-to-skin contact has been shown to decrease procedural pain response according to both behavioral and physiological indicators in very preterm neonates. It is uncertain if this comfort is derived solely from maternal presence or from stabilization of regulatory processes from direct skin contact. The intent of this study is to compare the comfort effect of co-bedding (between twin infants who are co-bedding and those who are not) on infant pain response and physiologic stability during a tissue breaking procedure (heelstick).

Medically stable preterm twin infants admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit will be randomly assigned to a co-bedding group or a standard care group. Pain response will be measured by physiological and videotaped facial reaction using the Premature Infant Pain Profile scale (PIPP). Recovery from the tissue breaking procedure will be determined by the length of time for heart rate and oxygen saturation to return to baseline. Sixty four sets of twins (n = 128) will be recruited into the study. Analysis and inference will be based on the intention-to-treat principle.

If twin contact while co-bedding is determined to have a comforting effect for painful procedures, then changes in current neonatal care practices to include co-bedding may be an inexpensive, non invasive method to help maintain physiologic stability and decrease the long term psychological impact of procedural pain in this high risk population. Knowledge obtained from this study will also add to existing theoretical models with respect to the exact mechanism of comfort through touch.

Trial registration

Download full-text


Available from: Marsha, M., ML. Lynn Campbell-Yeo, Sep 29, 2015
42 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Infant acute pain and distress is commonplace. Infancy is a period of exponential development. Unrelieved pain and distress can have implications across the lifespan. To assess the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (up to three years) acute pain, excluding breastmilk, sucrose, and music. Analyses accounted for infant age (preterm, neonate, older) and pain response (pain reactivity, pain-related regulation). We searched CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2011), EMBASE (1980 to April 2011), PsycINFO (1967 to April 2011), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 2011), Dissertation Abstracts International (1980 to 2011) and We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves. Participants included infants from birth to three years. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or RCT cross-overs that had a no-treatment control comparison were eligible for inclusion in the analyses. We examined studies that met all inclusion criteria except for study design (e.g. had an active control) to qualitatively contextualize results. We refined search strategies with three Cochrane-affiliated librarians. At least two review authors extracted and rated 51 articles. Study quality ratings were based on a scale by Yates and colleagues. We analyzed the standardized mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method. We also provided qualitative descriptions of 20 relevant but excluded studies. Fifty-one studies, with 3396 participants, were analyzed. The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel-sticks (29 studies) and needles (n = 10 studies). The largest SMD for treatment improvement over control conditions on pain reactivity were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (preterm: SMD -0.42; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.15; neonate: SMD -1.45, 95% CI -2.34 to -0.57), kangaroo care (preterm: SMD -1.12, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.21), and swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.97; 95% CI -1.63 to -0.31). For immediate pain-related regulation, the largest SMDs were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (preterm: SMD -0.38; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.17; neonate: SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.25), kangaroo care (SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.03), swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.75; 95% CI -1.14 to -0.36), and rocking/holding (neonate: SMD -0.75; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.30). The presence of significant heterogeneity limited our confidence in the lack of findings for certain analyses. There is evidence that different non-pharmacological interventions can be used with preterms, neonates, and older infants to significantly manage pain behaviors associated with acutely painful procedures.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 10/2011; 7(10):CD006275. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006275.pub2 · 6.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Physiologic stability is a omnipresent concept in the scientific literature. However, there is a limited number of conceptual definition of this concept in the literature. A concept analysis about physiologic stability is a way to set the theoric basis of this multidimensional concept. Mutilidimension illutrated by the multiples utilisations of the concept in a various way. In this meaning, the identification of the attributes, the antecedents and the consequences of the physiologic stability concept conduct to the elaboration of a conceptual definition for the concept. The aim of this scientific contribution is also to develop a reflexion about the utilisation of the concept physiologic stability without defining it at first.
    Recherche en soins infirmiers 03/2011; 70(104):99-116. DOI:10.1111/jan.12391
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Preterm twins are at high risk for growth and developmental problems. Co-bedding (placement of twins in the same cot or incubator) has been proposed to benefit twins because it simulates the environment they share prior to birth, in which the twins support each other through a series of observed activities, termed "coregulation". These activities have been proposed to promote growth and brain development if they are allowed to continue after birth. However, there may be risks in placing twins in the same incubator or cot, including caregiver errors and infections. In this review, we planned to put together evidence on the benefits and risks of co-bedding stable preterm twins. This review found five, mostly small studies with some limitations in their methods. Overall, there were no differences between the co-bedded group and the group receiving care separately in terms of weight gain, episodes of major disturbances in their breathing, heart rate or oxygenation level (apnoea, bradycardia or desaturation episodes), length of hospital stay and infections. As the overall quality of evidence was low, we could not make any recommendation for or against co-bedding for stable preterm twins in neonatal nursery. Further research is needed in this field.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 12/2012; 12(12):CD008313. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008313.pub2 · 6.03 Impact Factor
Show more