ParentDish

Stroke Rates Up in Pregnant Women, New Moms, Study Finds

Lesley Kennedy — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:30:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Pregnancy Health, Research Reveals

Credit: Getty Images

We've asked this before, but don't pregnant women have enough to worry about already?

Now, you can add an increase in stroke rates to their list of health concerns.

According to the Wall Street Journal, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found the rate of pregnant women being hospitalized for strokes rose 47 percent between 1994-95 and 2006-7, while the rate rose 83 percent for women who had given birth within the last three months.

Now, those numbers are still very low, the newspaper reports, with just .22 hospitalizations for every 1,000 deliveries, but, still, the numbers have experts concerned.

The findings, published in Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association, could be a result of pregnant women being at risk more and more often for things such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure, all risk factors for stroke, the Journal reports.

Lead study author Elena Kuklina, an epidemiologist at the CDC's heart disease and stroke prevention division, tells the newspaper women should get general health exams before they plan to get pregnant to determine any issues that could be reversed.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Pregnant Moms Who Use Mouthwash Not as Likely to Have Preemies, Study Finds

Lesley Kennedy — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Pregnancy Health, Research Reveals

Credit: Getty Images

"Floss, floss, floss!" You've been commanded by dentists for years to heed that advice. Now, it may be time to add "mouthwash, mouthwash, mouthwash!" to your oral health routine.

A new study finds pregnant moms with gum disease have a better chance of delivering full-term babies if they use mouthwash while they're expecting, Reuters reports, as preggo women with periodontal disease have more premature babies than moms with healthy gums.

Researchers found when women used an alcohol-free mouth rinse, the risk of early labor seemed to be decreased by three-quarters, according to the news service.

Reuters notes staff and funding from the study, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, came from Procter and Gamble -- a company that makes mouthwash.

The study doesn't draw specific conclusions, but Dr. Marjorie Jeffcoat, lead author and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, tells the news service dental care is crucial.

"They need to use a soft toothbrush and floss the right way," wrapping the floss around the tooth, she told Reuters in an earlier interview. "The first goal with almost all dental disease is prevention, prevention, prevention."

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Does Prenatal Depression Lead to Children's Asthma?

Tom Henderson — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Pregnancy Health, Research Reveals

Credit: Getty Images

Not to bum you out even more, but if you're pregnant and depressed, you're increasing your unborn child's risk of having asthma.

"Approximately 70 percent of mothers who said they experienced high levels of anxiety or depression while they were pregnant reported their child had wheezed before age 5," researcher Marilyn Reyes of Columbia University says in a press release. "Understanding how maternal depression affects a child's respiratory health is important in developing effective interventions."

In the study, published in the July issue of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, researchers studied the link between depressed mothers and wheezing children in low-income, urban environments. Turns out no one breathes easy when Mama is depressed.

"Prior research has linked maternal prenatal and postnatal mental health with the subsequent development of asthma in children," the authors write. "However, this relationship has not been examined in inner-city African Americans and Hispanics, populations at high risk for asthma."

Researchers focused on 279 pregnant African-American and Dominican women ages 18 to 35 in the Bronx and northern Manhattan areas of New York City.

"In this inner-city cohort, prenatal demoralization was associated with transient and persistent wheeze," the authors write. "Understanding how maternal demoralization influences children's respiratory health may be important for developing effective interventions among disadvantaged populations."

In other words, cheer up. This study could ultimately lead to ways help easy prenatal depression and help kids breathe a little easier.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Trying to Get Pregnant? Start Flossing

Lesley Kennedy — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Infertility, Pregnancy Health

Credit: Getty Images

Trying to get pregnant? Be sure to floss.

BBC News reports an Australian study presented at a fertility meeting in Sweden this week says bad oral health is just as bad as obesity when it comes to fertility and flossing regularly can help a woman get pregnant faster.

Experts reported that women who had gum disease too more than seven months to get pregnant -- that's two months longer than the average five months, according to the network.

Periodontal disease doesn't just affect the ability to conceive -- it also has been shown as a factor in heart disease, type 2 diabetes, miscarriage and plus poor sperm quality.

"Until now, there have been no published studies that investigate whether gum disease can affect a woman's chance of conceiving, so this is the first report to suggest that gum disease might be one of several factors that could be modified to improve the chances of a pregnancy," Roger Hart, the study's lead researcher and professor at the University of Western Australia, tells the BBC.

Hart says women trying to conceive should schedule a dentist appointment.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

It's Safe to Have a Baby if You Have Multiple Sclerosis, Study Finds

Tom Henderson — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Pregnancy Health, Health, Research Reveals

Mothers with MS had more babies born with physical disabilities, but the difference was not statistically significant and further research is needed. Credit: Getty Images

If you have multiple sclerosis, don't worry about having a baby.

According to U.S. News & World Report, a new study confirms pregnancy is generally safe for women with the disease.

The magazine reports Canadian researchers studied 432 births to mothers with multiple sclerosis and 3,000 births to women without the disease between 1998 and 2009. They found no significant differences in either the rate of premature births or the number of low-birth weight infants.

The likelihood of cesarean versus vaginal delivery also was the same. However, mothers with MS had more babies born with physical disabilities, but the difference was not statistically significant and further research is needed, the magazine reports.

"Our finding that MS was not associated with poor pregnancy or birth outcomes should be reassuring to women with MS who are planning to start a family," study author Mia van der Kop, a member of the MS research group at the University of British Columbia and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, tells the magazine.

Her team noted that women with MS were more often overweight or obese, which is associated with greater risk during pregnancy and birth.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Pregnant? Get Vaccinated Against Whooping Cough

Tom Henderson — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:30:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Pregnancy Health

Members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted June 22 to recommend pregnant women who previously were not vaccinated to do so. Credit: Getty Images

If you're pregnant, a federal advisory panel recommends you get vaccinated against whooping cough.

Given that outbreaks of whooping cough last year in California and other states led to more than 21,000 cases nationwide (at least 4,000 more than in 2009), members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices advise pregnant women who previously were not vaccinated to do so.

In summary, California had its worst outbreak of whooping cough in 50 years.

The vaccine, which does not use live bacteria, would be given to pregnant women in the third trimester or late second trimester.

Children get whooping cough vaccine in a series of shots beginning at 2 months. Most infant deaths and hospitalizations now occur in the first two months of life, according to the Washington Post. Researchers have found getting a shot during pregnancy enables women to pass some immunity to their children.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Pregnant Moms: Get Flu Vaccine to Keep Babies From Getting Sick, Researchers Say

Lesley Kennedy — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:10:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Babies, Pregnancy Health

Credit: Getty Images

Don't want to take any chances when it comes to keeping your newborn from catching the flu? Get the influenza vaccine while you're still pregnant.

Researchers have found babies born to to moms who got the shot while preggers have almost a 50 percent smaller chance of being hospitalized for the flu than those whose mom's didn't get the vaccine, according to a news release.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends the influenza vaccination for kids older than 6 months, but pregnant women should get it, too, the release states.

"It is recommended that all pregnant women receive the influenza vaccine during pregnancy because it is known that pregnant women have increased morbidity and mortality during pregnancy and in the immediate postpartum period if they get the flu," Dr. Katherine A. Poehling, an associate professor of pediatrics and lead author on the study, says in the release. "We also know that mothers pass antibodies through the placenta to the baby. This study showed us that receiving the influenza vaccine during pregnancy not only protects the mother, but also protects the baby in the early months of life."

Infants younger than 6 months have the highest rates of flu hospitalization among all children, Poehling says in the release, but the influenza vaccine isn't effective in babies that young.

"Similar findings have been published from other studies, but they've been published in general journals or journals about pediatrics and infectious diseases," Poehling says of the study, published in the June issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. "Where the information is published really does make a difference because pediatricians need to know about it, but it's even more important that the doctors taking care of pregnant women -- obstetricians and gynecologists (OB/GYNs) -- know it, too. Pediatricians have been vaccinating children for a long time, but vaccine recommendations for OB/GYNs have changed over the last decade, so everyone is having to learn new recommendations and adjust. This is a relatively new activity for OB/GYNs."

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Investing in More Midwives Could Help Save Lives, UN Study Finds

Lesley Kennedy — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:30:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Delivery, Research Reveals: Babies, Pregnancy Health, Research Reveals

Credit: Getty Images

Midwives don't only deliver babies, they can deliver health services to women, as well, something that could affect newborn and maternal deaths worldwide, the Associated Press reports.

According to the news service, a United Nations Population Fund study of 58 countries
identified as "suffering from a crisis in human resources for health," shows midwives should be respected and invested in by governments and donors.

"We have now realized that there is a huge potential in the hands of the midwives that was not being exploited," Dr. Vincent Fauveau, who coordinated the study, tells AP, adding that midwives can assist women with birth control services.

Some of the study's findings, according to the news service, include:

Just 6 percent of births in Ethiopia are attended by a doctor, nurse or midwife.
AIDS is linked to nearly 80 percent of maternal deaths in Botswana.
Midwives in Liberia often deal with 10 to 15 deliveries a day; U.N. health agency recommendations say that number should be one or two.

Fauveau tells AP investing in more clinics is also essential and that war, poverty and hunger serve as other dangers for women and kids.

"The revolution will not take place in a few months or a few years," he tells the news service. "It's a long-term strategy."

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Your Sleep Position May Save Your Unborn Baby's Life

Tom Henderson — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Pregnancy Health

Study shows pregnant women who sleep on their left side reduce the risk of stillbirths. Credit: Getty Images

The position you sleep in could be a matter of life and death for your unborn children.

Researchers in New Zealand tell U.S. News & World Report pregnant women who sleep on their left side reduce the risk of stillbirths. In fact, they warn, women who sleep in other positions sometimes double the risk of having a stillborn infant.

"This is a new and potentially exciting hypothesis, but further research is required before all women are advised to sleep on their left side in late pregnancy," lead researcher Tomasina Stacey, a graduate student in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Auckland, tells the magazine.

What's the big deal with sleeping on your left side? Experts tell U.S. News it has to do with improved blood flow to the fetus. Still, that's just a theory, which is why researchers are looking into it.

They interviewed 155 women who had a stillborn infant after at least 28 weeks of gestation and compared these women with 310 pregnant women with routine ongoing pregnancies.

U.S. News reports the women were asked about their sleep position during the last month of their pregnancy, the last week of their pregnancy and on the night they believed the stillbirth occurred.

The women also were asked about snoring, daytime sleepiness, if they regularly slept during the day during the last month of pregnancy, how much sleep they got at night and how many times a night they got up to use the toilet.

None of the the other factors provided a connection. But researchers found a link between sleep positions and the number of stillbirths. Not a big link, but a link.

Stillbirths occurred in roughly two out of every 1,000 pregnancies among women who slept on their left side -- versus approximately four out of every 1,000 pregnancies.

"This is an interesting finding, but we should be cautious about making a large jump to saying that this is the cause of stillbirth," Lucy Chappell, a clinical senior lecturer in Maternal and Fetal Medicine in the division of women's health at King's College London, tells U.S. News. "And we should not rush out to run a large campaign to say pregnant women should sleep on their left side."

Even the study's leader agrees with that.

"An observational study such as this cannot determine cause-and-effect but it has identified an area that urgently requires further exploration," Stacey tells the magazine.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Could Prenatal DNA Testing Open Pandora's Box?

Associated Press — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Pregnancy Health, Research Reveals

Credit: Jose Luis Pelaez, Getty Images

NEW YORK (AP) - Imagine being pregnant and taking a simple blood test that lays bare the DNA of your fetus. And suppose that DNA could reveal not only medical conditions like Down syndrome, but also things like eye color and height. And the risk for developing depression or Alzheimer's disease. And the chances of being gay.

So far that's still science fiction. But scientists have been taking some baby steps in that direction. And some ethics experts say it's time to start talking now about what that could mean for parents and society.

___

This is the second story in a two-part series on fetal DNA testing and the ethical issues raised by it.

___

Scanning fetal DNA from a blood test will be "without question a major medical advance that promises to greatly improve current prenatal care," says Jaime King, an associate professor at the UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco who studies genetic testing. But bringing it into practice "raises significant practical, legal, ethical and social challenges," she says.

"This really changes the experience of what it will be like to be pregnant and have a child," said Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, Calif. "I keep coming up with the word, game-changer."

She wonders if parents would withhold their commitment to a pregnancy until test results show a fetus is "good enough" to be born. And what, she asks, is good enough?

She and others worry about how well couples will be able to understand this flood of information, and just what should be revealed.

The issues have been discussed before. The DNA of a fetus has long been recoverable through medical procedures, with a small risk of miscarriage. But a blood test would be free of that risk, which should make many more women interested in it and doctors willing to test for a wider range of conditions, some experts say. And the results could come early enough to allow for an abortion before the pregnancy is even obvious.

The trigger for the new round of discussion is a couple of papers published last December. In preliminary results, two research teams showed that they could essentially reconstruct a baby's genetic makeup by recovering fragments of fetal DNA from the mother's bloodstream. That ability, plus the rapidly falling cost of analyzing DNA, would open the door to inspecting individual genes.

That would go well beyond the more accurate prenatal blood test for Down syndrome that some companies hope to market within a year.

Within five to 10 years, doctors may be able to test for 100 or 200 diseases, albeit many of them rare, estimates Stanford University law professor Hank Greely, who studies the implications of biomedical technologies.

Prenatal testing "is going to put a lot more information about the genetics of a child into the hands of a lot more parents," said King.

That knowledge has a flip side. "How much responsibility are we expecting people to take for the genetic makeup of any child they might have?" asks Josephine Johnston, a research scholar at the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank near New York City.

If a child is born with a condition that could have been detected, the presence of the test changes that outcome "from something that happened to you, to something that you participated in," she says.

"That's a very big burden to place on would-be parents," she said, adding that it's hard for a pregnant woman to refuse any test for a medical condition because it feels like the responsible thing to do.

Johnston has personal experience; she gave birth to a girl just two years ago. When offered a medical screening test for the fetus, she generally felt compelled to take it.

"At the moment these things happen, it's just you there by yourself," she said. Some people might like that level of control, but others "would be happier to leave things up to chance a little more."

She said if she were pregnant again and offered a wider range of tests, she'd restrict herself to "really, really serious disabilities and disorders."

King, who had a son 18 months ago, said she wouldn't have wanted to know about any risk for incurable diseases that show up in adulthood. Those are "things that would have caused us to spend a lot of time worrying about what his future would look like even though there's nothing we could do about it," she said.

In the future, such testing could also look for other genes - some of which aren't yet identified - that affect non-medical traits.

"If no limitations are put on, you can have a couple get a prenatal genetic test in the future saying their fetus has ... a 60 percent chance of having breast cancer at the age of 60 and a 30 percent chance of being gay," says Dr. Brian Skotko, a board member of the National Down Syndrome Society.

Since such information would come early enough for an abortion, Skotko says, "The ultimate question for society is, What forms of human variation are valuable?"

Then there's the possibility of direct-to-consumer companies stepping in to fill demand, King said. Couples who go that route may miss out on getting help in understanding the nuances of what the test results really mean, said Dr. Mary Norton, a Stanford professor of obstetrics and gynecology.

Once the prenatal information is available, another question arises, King said: Should a woman be allowed to get an abortion for any reason, even a trivial one like test results about height or eye color? Some state governments have passed laws outlawing abortions on the basis of sex, she said. But it's not clear whether those are constitutional, and a woman might simply not reveal her true reasons for wanting the abortion, King said.

Skotko points out that people use their own personal perspective in deciding what they want for their children. Some couples who are deaf from a genetic condition already use current technology to avoid having children with normal hearing. "It's their lens by which they view the world, and they want a child who views the world through that same lens," he said.

Greely sees other concerns. Will the testing become so routine that women won't even realize they authorized it, and then be faced with information and an abortion decision they didn't necessarily want? How can they be helped to make an informed decision on whether to be tested? And if offered a choice of genes to be tested, or results to be told about, who will help them sort through the long list to decide what they want to know? Few doctors are informed enough, and there aren't enough genetic counselors go around, he said.

The same problem arises later when it comes time to help couples understand what the results really mean, he said. "How do you tell somebody about 100 different genetic things?" he asked. "Who's going to do that? Who's going to listen to that? Who's going to pay for that?"

Results can be complex. For example, how is a woman supposed to balance a 25 percent increase in risk for one disease versus a 15 percent decrease in another, Darnovsky asks.

On a societal level, King said she's concerned that the prenatal diagnosis might become seen as a way of "curing" diseases by aborting fetuses that have them.

Greely recently spoke about prenatal diagnosis before the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical issues, a federal advisory board. Valerie Bonham, executive director, said the commission may pursue the topic further as part of a project on DNA technology. "It's an important and emerging issue," she said.

Norton doesn't believe the arrival of a blood test for DNA analysis would raise all the issues some observers cite. But she thinks it's still a good idea to talk about what the new technology could mean.

"I think that it is always better and helpful and important to bring up all of these issues, whether they are likely to really become reality or not," she said.

"Once you've opened Pandora's box, it's harder to close it."

If you had the option, would you consider having this test? Join the discussion on Facebook!

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. This article was written by Malcolm Ritter, Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Permalink | Email this | Comments

British Mother Glad She Chain-Smoked During Pregnancy

Tom Henderson — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:30:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Pregnancy Health

Credit: Joe Raedle, Getty Images

If you want to have strong and healthy baby, smoke at least 3,500 cigarettes while you're pregnant.

Sure, your doctor will tell you smoking during pregnancy puts your baby at an increased risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke, blindness, gum disease and a whole slew of birth defects.

But who are you going to trust, your doctor or a 20-year-old chain-smoker?

British mother Charlie Wilcox is not, like, a doctor or anything, but she's got this theory: Smoking is actually good for unborn babies.

Smoking cuts off the oxygen supply to the womb, right? The way she figures it, Wilcox tells the London Daily Mirror, that's a good thing. The baby has to work harder, so you end up with a stronger baby.

Tough love begins in the womb.

Several million scientists may have just gone bald from pulling their hair out at Wilcox's logic, but she points to her daughter, Lilly, who has gone 14 months without developing heart disease.

"On average, when I was pregnant I smoked a fag every 45 minutes -- a minimum of 20 a day -- though I cut down to five a day at six months," she brags to the Mirror. "I love just having something to do -- roll a fag, smoke the fag, watch TV."

(For you "Beavis and Butt-Head" types who are chortling right now, "fag" is British slang for cigarette.)

Wilcox's hypothesis about the benefits of prenatal smoking remain controversial. It's one of the reasons she was tapped for the British television series, "Misbehaving Mums To Be."

The Daily Mirror reports Wilcox lived on carbon monoxide levels six times higher than those considered safe during her pregnancy. Yeah, well, Wilcox points to a friend who had a miscarriage. It happened right after the woman quit smoking. So there. What more scientific evidence do you need?

Shane Baker, the father of her child, tells the Mirror he's heard "gossip" about smoking being bad for babies -- but he doesn't see it. Lilly was only 10 days premature and a pound or two lighter than the average baby in Britain.

Wilcox tells the Mirror she did nothing wrong in smoking like a chimney while she was pregnant.

"It was my right," she tells the newspaper. "I don't believe it was hurting Lilly. I thought if I was smoking it would make her use her own heart and the muscles she'd have to use when she was out."

Besides, quitting smoking would have been rough.

"I think if I'd given up straight away, the stress would have been more harmful to the baby," Wilcox tells the Mirror.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Morning Sickness Excercise Video for Your First Trimester

Jessica Samakow — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:30:00 EST

Filed under: Pregnancy Health, Expert Advice: Pregnancy

This instructional exercise video can help alleviate morning sickness during the first trimester of pregnancy. So, move the furniture, grab a yoga mat and follow these tips and tricks to relieve the common pregnancy symptom.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Even 'Full-Term' Babies Born at 37 Weeks Face Health Risks, Study Finds

Lesley Kennedy — Tue, 31 May 2011 12:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Delivery, Pregnancy Health

Waiting to deliver as long as possible significantly decreases risks for your newborn. Credit: Getty

Trust us, we know how excruciating that last month of pregnancy can be. We waddled on long walks, bounced on exercise balls and ate plenty of spicy food in hopes of coaxing that baby out early.

But a new study shows waiting to deliver as long as possible significantly decreases risks for your newborn, The New York Times reports.

Typically, when a pregnancy lasts 37 weeks, it's considered full-term, according to the newspaper, but a report from the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the March of Dimes shows a baby born in the 37th or 38th week has a higher risk of dying in his or her first year than a baby born after 39 weeks.

Published last week in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the study looked at more than 46 million babies born between 1995 and 2006 in the United States, The Times reports. In 2006, children born at 37 weeks had double the death rate in the first year of life (3.9 deaths per 1,000 births) than babies born at 40 weeks (1.9 deaths per 1,000 births).

Additionally, researchers report the number of babies born during that time period before 39 weeks rose from about one in three births to more than one in five births, according to the newspaper.

"Women need to know that all 'term' pregnancies are not alike," Dr. Uma M. Reddy, lead author of the study, tells The Times. "If the pregnancy is uncomplicated, babies should not be delivered before 39 weeks."

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Taking Prenatal Vitamins in First Month of Pregnancy Can Reduce Autism Risk, Study Finds

Lesley Kennedy — Thu, 26 May 2011 11:15:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Pregnancy Health

Prenatal vitamins reduces chances of autism. Credit: Corbis

Doctors have been telling women for years to take their prenatal vitamins during pregnancy, but now there's new reason to start taking them before you even plan to have a baby.

A new study found women who did not take their prenatal vitamins right before and during their pregnancies were twice as likely to have an autistic child, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Researchers at the University of California Davis also found that if women have certain high-risk gene mutations, their chances of giving birth a to child with autism is up to seven times more likely, according to the newspaper.

The study, to be published in July in the online edition of Epidemiology, found women who took their prenatal vitamins before getting pregnant or during the first month of pregnancy were half as likely to give birth to an autistic child, but moms who didn't start taking the pills until they were two months pregnant didn't receive any benefits when it came to warding off the developmental disorder, the Times reports.

What this means: If you don't know you're pregnant until you're a couple months in, prenatals aren't going to fight off autism, according to the newspaper.

As for gene mutations that have been linked to a higher risk of autism, the Times reports women who didn't take prenatals and had the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene had a four and a half times greater than normal risk of having a child with autism, and women with the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene had a seven times greater risk.

"The good news is that, if this finding is replicated, it will provide an inexpensive, relatively simple evidence-based action that women can take to reduce risks for their child, which is to take prenatal vitamins as early as possible in a pregnancy and even when planning for a pregnancy," epidemiologist Irva Hertz-Picciotto, senior author of the study, tells the Times.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Pregnancy Weight Loss Can Be Safe for Obese Women

the editors at FoxNews.com — Tue, 24 May 2011 10:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Pregnancy Health

Severely obese women who lost weight, rather than gaining the recommended amount, had less need for C-sections and were less likely to deliver large newborns. Credit: Getty Images

According to a new study that seems to buck traditional medical logic, obese women may actually be able to lose weight during pregnancy without harming themselves or their babies.

In fact, the weight loss -- if done the right way -- could possibly reduce the women's risk of needing a cesarean section.

Previously, many doctors followed the recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), an advisory panel to the U.S. government, which say that obese women should gain 11 to 20 pounds during pregnancy.

This is less than the 25 to 35 pound weight gain recommended for normal-weight women, but some researchers say it isn't that simple. These researchers have criticized the IOM for not considering different levels of obesity.

Dr. Marie Blomberg, the author of the new study, found that severely obese women (those with a BMI of 40 or higher) could actually benefit from losing weight.

The study findings indicated that severely obese women who lost weight, rather than gaining the recommended amount, had less need for C-sections and were less likely to deliver large newborns.

Personally, I totally agree with the study. I think the findings are important for practicing obstetricians who are facing these types of issues to consider.

Severely obese women with BMIs greater than 40 should have minimal or no weight gain during pregnancy, providing that they continue to eat a balanced diet that incorporates the nutrients necessary to maintain a healthy baby and a healthy mother.

The whole mythology of pregnancy weight gain fixed on just a number has been turned around completely, and now obstetricians must focus on the initial weight of an expecting mom and decide the best course of action from there.

A balanced diet and exercise -- especially in these women -- as long as there are no other risk factors present, is essential in reducing or even eliminating problems during pregnancy.

More from Foxnews.com:

Best and Worst Fast-Food Breakfasts

Are C-Sections Fueling the Obesity Epidemic?

Top Tips for Women's Health

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Every Week Counts Campaign Raises Awareness About Dangers of Early Induced Labor

Laura Stampler — Mon, 09 May 2011 10:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Pregnancy Health, Research Reveals

Credit: Getty Images

With back pain, insomnia and fingers so swollen they can barely hold a fork for the rare meal that doesn't result in massive heartburn, in the final weeks of a pregnancy, many women are ready to get that baby out and now.

Over the past two decades, instances of induced labor have increased by more than 13 percent, a number that is, for the most part, attributed to a rise in elective, rather than medical, inductions. Although a pregnancy is labeled full-term between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation, studies show that scheduling cesarean sections and inducing labor for non-medical reasons before 39 weeks can prove dangerous to the child's health and development. The March of Dimes and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have connected with doctors and hospitals across the country in a movement to eliminate unnecessary early births.

"Some people think, hey, it's time, the baby should be fine," said Dr. Scott Berns, the senior vice president of the March of Dimes Chapter Programs.

But babies who are born prior to 39 weeks are more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit, Berns continued. They are also at higher risk of breathing, feeding, weight, hearing and vision complications than babies born after 39 weeks of gestation.

Even though ACOG has readily disseminated this information since the 1970s, the number of early electively-inducted labor and C-sections has only increased. According to the March of Dimes, between 1990 and 2006, the rate of births between 36 and 38 weeks has risen exponentially (between 25 and 50 percent.) Births after 40 weeks of gestation have decreased drastically.

And so explains the reasoning behind the Every Week Counts campaign to educate patients and medical practitioners on the importance of waiting to deliver.

"If a baby needs to be born for a medical reason, that baby should be born," said Dr. George Macones, an OBGYN at Washington University's School of Medicine in St. Louis. "But when I was practicing in Philadelphia, patients put pressure to deliver early for what I call 'social purposes.' "

According to Macones, births of convenience are often requested to accommodate visiting relatives who want to witness the birth or a doctor's busy schedule.

"But there are also problems with dating," Macones said. "What you think might be 37 weeks can really be 36 or 35."

The developmental differences between a 35- and 39-week-old baby is drastic. A baby's brain at 35 weeks, for example, weighs only two-thirds of what it will weight at 39 to 40 weeks. Furthermore, preterm birth (before 37 weeks) costs the United States $26 billion annually, according to the Institute of Medicine.

The California Chapter of the March of Dimes created a downloadable toolkit that assists hospitals nationwide in eliminating non-medically indicated deliveries prior to 39 weeks of gestation.

Hospitals in what are known as the "big five" states (New York, California, Florida, Texas and Illinois), which account for 40 percent of births in the United States, have been specifically targeted for participation. But the initiative has had a much farther reach. The toolkit is downloaded roughly 30 times a week and has been used in at least 35 states.

Oklahoma, which ranks 46th in the nation for infant mortality, began the Every Week Counts program last week.

"We did have a state initiative recognizing that our state is one of the worst," said Barbara O'Brien, senior coordinator of the Oklahoma University Health Sciences Office of Perinatal Continuing Education. Sixty-eight percent of births in Oklahoma occurred before 40 weeks.

"We are almost at 100 percent participation," O'Brien said. Of 60 hospitals statewide, 55 are contributing to the program.

O'Brien said she was shocked to see how frequently cases of induced labor occurred due to elective rather than medical reasons.

There is a dearth of data as to how many scheduled deliveries prior to 39 weeks are elective, Berns said.

"The first thing a hospital will say when you ask the question, their first reaction is, 'Well we don't do that, we don't deliver babies unless they need to be delivered,' " Berns said. "When they actually pull the charts, though, what happens oftentimes is that they'll look and say, 'Gosh, we were at 20 percent.'"

With the Every Week Counts program gaining momentum, medical practitioners hope that education will be the key to a shift in mindset and behavior.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Season in Which Babies Are Born Could Affect Everything From Allergies to Anorexia, Study Shows

Lesley Kennedy — Wed, 04 May 2011 15:00:00 EST

Filed under: Health & Safety: Babies, In The News, Pregnancy Health

The season in which a child is born could affect health long-term, research shows. Credit: Getty Images

Expecting a spring baby? Your child is more likely to suffer from anorexia. Baby coming in the fall? Food allergies could crop up. Summer delivery? Hello, four eyes. Winter birth? Mental health issues are more common.

New research says the season in which children are born could affect their health, LiveScience reports.

"We found an excess of anorexia births in the spring months compared to the general population," study researcher Lahiru Handunnetthi, of the Wellcome Trust Center for Human Genetics, tells the website. "The idea is that there is some sort of risk factor that varies seasonally with anorexia."

LiveScience reports eight out of 100 people born between March and June had anorexia -- a 15 percent increase in risk for spring babies.

Handunnetthi tells LiveScience vitamin D levels could be to blame, citing seasonal infections, nutrition changes and fluctuations in the weather.

More findings, according to LiveScience:

A 2003 study from the Journal of Nutrition showed African-American babies born in the summer and fall were smaller than those born in the spring and winter.
Fall babies have a 9.5 percent risk of having food allergies -- compared to a 5 percent risk for June and July babies.
Babies born in November or December were three times more apt to experience eczema and wheezing, according to a 2010 study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
Moderate and severe nearsightedness, as well as far-sightedness, is highest for summer babies, according to a 2008 report from the journal Ophthalmology.
A 2010 study published in the journal Nature Neuroscience found mice born in winter months "were less able to adapt to a summer light cycle, which could be related to the increased risk of mental health disorders in humans born in the winter."
Leukemia has been linked to spring births, peaking in April.
Austria and Denmark studies have found fall babies live longer than spring babies.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Wheezing Infants Linked to Mothers' BPA Exposure

Tom Henderson — Wed, 04 May 2011 12:30:00 EST

Filed under: Health & Safety: Babies, Pregnancy Health

Ninety percent of Americans are exposed to Bisphenol A. Credit: Getty Images

If your infant is wheezing a lot, it could be because you were exposed to a certain kind of plastic early in your pregnancy.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical found in many hard plastic containers as well as water bottles and inside metal food and beverage cans. In fact, according to researchers at Penn State College of Medicine, at least 90 percent of Americans are exposed to it.

US News & World Report reports researchers found a link between respiratory problems in newborns and BPA levels in their mothers during pregnancy.

Researchers looked at 367 mothers and infants, measuring BPA levels in the mothers' urine at the 16th and 26th week of pregnancy, as well as when the women gave birth. Parents then reported signs of wheezing in their babies every six months for three years.

Babies at 6 months were twice as likely to wheeze if their mothers had high levels of BPA during pregnancy. However, the symptoms eventually went away and there were no differences in wheezing rates by the time the children were 3 years old, the magazine reports.

"Consumers need more information about the chemicals in the products they purchase so they can make informed decisions," lead author Adam J. Spanier, an assistant professor of pediatrics and public health sciences at Penn State College of Medicine, tells US News & World Report. "Additional research is needed in this area to determine if changes should be made in public policy to reduce exposure to this chemical."

He suggested women thinking about getting pregnant avoid products made with BPA for the time being.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Pesticides Could Affect Babies' IQs Later On, Study Shows

Tom Henderson — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:30:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Research Reveals: Babies, Pregnancy Health, Health

Watch a video on testing IQ in children!

Mom's exposure to pesticides can lower babies' IQ. Credit: Getty Images

Pesticides may kill brain cells as well as bugs.

The Los Angeles Times reports researchers in three separate studies have found expectant mothers exposed to low doses of a specific class of pesticides may have babies who develop slightly lower IQs in later childhood.

Researchers claim children often had lower IQs by age 7 if their mothers had higher-than-average exposure during pregnancy to organophosphates -- pesticides farmers sometimes spray on fruits and vegetables.

Most of the time, those in the study were low-income African-American and Hispanic women.

Researchers in each study measured organophosphates in the mother's urine or blood during pregnancy. Women could have been exposed to pesticides by eating or breathing.

The pesticides were once common in households before the Environmental Protection Agency banned their use in 2002, according to the Times. But, until recently, the chemicals were still common in inner cities as insecticides.

In one study, the newspaper reports, Columbia University researchers found African-American and Dominican women in New York City had the highest levels of chlorpyrifos, a type of organophosphate, in their umbilical-cord plasma.

In another study, researchers from Mount Sinai found Hispanic and African-American women in New York with the highest levels of organophosphates in their urine had children with slightly lower IQs.

Finally, University of California at Berkeley researchers studied Mexican women in Salinas, Calif. They found a seven point IQ difference between children whose mothers had the highest exposure compared with those who had the lowest.

Many of the women were poor, the Times reports, and socioeconomic status is linked to lower IQs.

Researchers in some of the studies reportedly controlled for variables such as income. Women were compared with other women in the data set, not a national average.

"These studies present compelling evidence of the potential effects on children's neurodevelopment from exposure to chlorpyrifos and other organophosphate insecticides," Rudy Rull, a research scientist at the Cancer Prevention Institute of California in Fremont, tells the Times.

However, Brenda Eskenazi, a lead author on the Berkeley study, tells the Times the IQ differences were small, and some only appeared by looking at the data in a certain way. She urges caution.

"My feeling is, we don't have a super-good measurement of organophosphates during pregnancy, especially when there are lot of different ones they are exposed to," she tells the Times. "It's enough to say, there are definitely limitations to the measurement, and I think that's the reason why given that epidemiology is imperfect, you want to see convergence of findings and consistency among what you see in animals and humans."

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Website to the Rescue for New Mama Baby Health Drama

Mary Beth Sammons — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:00:00 EST

Filed under: In The News, Media, Pregnancy Health, Health

HealthTap brings the physician back into the health care equation. Credit: Getty Images

It's a new-mom's dream come true: When you wake up in the middle of the night and can't calm your squalling newborn, or Junior breaks out in a nasty rash and the promise of your pediatrician's answering service that the doc will call you Monday sounds like a hedge, help is on its way.

Just head for your laptop, type in the cause for the mama drama, and a new health site just for pregnant moms and mothers of infants can find answers to their health woes 24/7.

The idea behind the new beta website HealthTap is to bring the physician back into the health care equation, as opposed to other health Internet sites where community members share information about their conditions, the site's creators say. On HealthTap, doctors are site members, too, according to a release from the site.

Launched specifically for pregnant women and moms of infants up to 1 year old, the site currently has more than 550 OB/GYN members and pediatricians, who say they are interested in supporting the site because it offers a means of connecting with potential new patients.

"Online health information is currently overwhelming and confusing," Ron Gutman, CEO and founder of HealthTap, says in the release. "It's hard to know what to trust. Information is never about you, it's often vague and can even be dangerously misleading."

He says the site personalizes consumer health by bringing physicians online to directly deliver their medical wisdom.

HealthTap, which launched earlier this week, is touted as a free online "expert health companion" that helps users get more accurate, personalized answers to health-related concerns.

The info is personalized for users who log in and create a health profile. A mom of an infant, for example, can communicate with doctors on the network, and connect with other community members with new babies, as well, the release says.

Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!

Permalink | Email this | Comments