Sara E Benjamin Neelon1, Kiyah Duffey2, Meghan M Slining3. 1. Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Duke Global Health Institute, Durham, North Carolina; sara.benjamin@duke.edu. 2. Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia; and. 3. Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Department of Health Sciences, Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess state licensing and administrative regulations promoting healthy sleep practices in child care and to compare these regulations to national recommendations. METHODS: We reviewed regulations related to healthy sleep practices for all states and territories for both child care centers (centers) and family child care homes (homes). We compared regulations with Institute of Medicine recommendations to promote sleep in child care, including (1) create environments that ensure restful sleep; (2) encourage sleep-promoting behaviors and practices; (3) encourage practices that promote child self-regulation of sleep; and (4) seek consultation yearly from a sleep expert. We used Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel trend tests to assess associations between geographic region and number of regulations consistent with the recommendations. RESULTS: The mean number of regulations for states was 0.9 for centers and 0.8 for homes out of a possible 4.0. For centers, no state had regulations for all 4 recommendations; 11 states had regulations for 2 of the 4 recommendations. For homes, 9 states had regulations for 2 of the recommendations. States in the Northeast had the greatest mean number of regulations for centers (1.2) and homes (1.1), and states in the South had the fewest (0.7 and 0.7, respectively); these geographic differences were significant for centers (P = .03) but not homes (P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: More states in the Northeast had regulations consistent with the Institute of Medicine sleep recommendations, but overall few states had regulations consistent with the recommendations.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess state licensing and administrative regulations promoting healthy sleep practices in child care and to compare these regulations to national recommendations. METHODS: We reviewed regulations related to healthy sleep practices for all states and territories for both child care centers (centers) and family child care homes (homes). We compared regulations with Institute of Medicine recommendations to promote sleep in child care, including (1) create environments that ensure restful sleep; (2) encourage sleep-promoting behaviors and practices; (3) encourage practices that promote child self-regulation of sleep; and (4) seek consultation yearly from a sleep expert. We used Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel trend tests to assess associations between geographic region and number of regulations consistent with the recommendations. RESULTS: The mean number of regulations for states was 0.9 for centers and 0.8 for homes out of a possible 4.0. For centers, no state had regulations for all 4 recommendations; 11 states had regulations for 2 of the 4 recommendations. For homes, 9 states had regulations for 2 of the recommendations. States in the Northeast had the greatest mean number of regulations for centers (1.2) and homes (1.1), and states in the South had the fewest (0.7 and 0.7, respectively); these geographic differences were significant for centers (P = .03) but not homes (P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: More states in the Northeast had regulations consistent with the Institute of Medicine sleep recommendations, but overall few states had regulations consistent with the recommendations.
Authors: Elsie M Taveras; Matthew W Gillman; Michelle-Marie Peña; Susan Redline; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: J S Kjeldsen; M F Hjorth; R Andersen; K F Michaelsen; I Tetens; A Astrup; J-P Chaput; A Sjödin Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Heini Wennman; Erkki Kronholm; Timo Partonen; Asko Tolvanen; Markku Peltonen; Tommi Vasankari; Katja Borodulin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Elyse R Grossman; Sarah Gonzalez-Nahm; Natasha Frost; Sara E Benjamin-Neelon Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Ina S Santos; Diego G Bassani; Alicia Matijasevich; Camila S Halal; Bianca Del-Ponte; Suélen Henriques da Cruz; Luciana Anselmi; Elaine Albernaz; Michelle Fernandes; Luciana Tovo-Rodrigues; Mariangela F Silveira; Pedro C Hallal Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Iná S Santos; Bianca Del-Ponte; Luciana Tovo-Rodrigues; Camila S Halal; Alicia Matijasevich; Suélen Cruz; Luciana Anselmi; Mariângela Freitas Silveira; Pedro R Curi Hallal; Diego G Bassani Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-12-02