Title |
Maternal kisses are not effective in alleviating minor childhood injuries (boo‐boos): a randomized, controlled and blinded study
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, December 2015
|
DOI | 10.1111/jep.12508 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
The Study of Maternal and Child Kissing Working Group |
Abstract |
The practice of maternal kissing of minor injuries of childhood (boo-boos), though widely endorsed and practised, has never been demonstrated to be of benefit to children. To determine the efficacy, if any, of maternal kissing of boo-boos in toddlers. Randomized, controlled and double-blinded study of children with experimentally induced minor injuries. Control arms included both no intervention group and 'sham' (non-maternal) kissing. Children were blinded to the identity of the kisser in both the maternal and sham control groups. Outpatient research clinics in Ottawa, Canada. 943 maternal-toddler pairs recruited from the community. Toddler Discomfort Index (TDI) pre-injury, 1 and 5 minutes post-injury. One-minute and 5-minute TDI scores did not differ significantly between the maternal and sham kiss groups. Both of these groups had significantly higher TDI scores at 5 minutes compared to the no intervention group. Maternal kissing of boo-boos confers no benefit on children with minor traumatic injuries compared to both no intervention and sham kissing. In fact, children in the maternal kissing group were significantly more distressed at 5 minutes than were children in the no intervention group. The practice of maternal kissing of boo-boos is not supported by the evidence and we recommend a moratorium on the practice. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 161 | 24% |
United Kingdom | 47 | 7% |
Australia | 18 | 3% |
Canada | 18 | 3% |
Spain | 15 | 2% |
France | 12 | 2% |
Netherlands | 9 | 1% |
Sweden | 8 | 1% |
Ireland | 8 | 1% |
Other | 60 | 9% |
Unknown | 312 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 481 | 72% |
Scientists | 113 | 17% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 53 | 8% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 21 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 3% |
France | 3 | 3% |
Ukraine | 1 | 1% |
South Africa | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 80 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 15% |
Researcher | 13 | 15% |
Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
Other | 21 | 24% |
Unknown | 15 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 23% |
Psychology | 7 | 8% |
Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
Other | 23 | 26% |
Unknown | 21 | 24% |