Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 12, 2026
Construction of a Low-cost Mobile Incubator for Field and Laboratory Use
Published on: March 19, 2019
Co-bedding versus single-bedding premature multiple-gestation infants in incubators
Jacqueline Fowler Byers1, Wendy Yovaish, Linda B Lowman
1School of Nursing, College of Health and Public Affairs, University of Central Florida, Orlando 32816-2210, USA. jbyers@mail.ucf.edu
Insights
Co-bedding premature multiple-gestation infants in incubators is safe but shows no significant clinical benefits for infants or parents. Further research and policy development are recommended for this developmental care strategy.
Area of Science:
- Neonatal care
- Developmental psychology
- Pediatric nursing
Background:
- Premature multiple-gestation infants often require intensive care.
- Current practices involve single-bedding in incubators.
- Co-bedding is explored as a potential developmental care strategy.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare physiological stability and behavioral effects of co-bedding versus single-bedding for premature multiple-gestation infants.
- To assess the psychological effects on parents.
- To evaluate infant sleep-wake synchronicity and stress cues.
Main Methods:
- Prospective, randomized, repeated measure design.
- Convenience sample of infants and parents in co-bedded and control groups.
- Intervention: co-bedding infants in incubators.
Main Results:
- Significant differences observed in infant daily weight, feeding amount, and high-activity heart rate.
- No significant differences in parental state anxiety, maternal attachment, or parental satisfaction scores.
- Higher baseline parental satisfaction scores noted in the co-bedded group.
Conclusions:
- Co-bedding multiple-gestation infants in incubators is safe.
- No significant clinical improvements in infant or parental outcomes were found.
- Co-bedding can be an adjunctive developmental care strategy if parents desire it.
Objective:
To compare the physiological stability and behavioral effects of co-bedding with those of single-bedding premature multiple-gestation infants in incubators as well as the psychological effects on their parents.
Design:
Prospective, randomized, repeated measure.
Participants:
Convenience sample of 16 infants and 8 parents in the co-bedded group, and 21 infants and 11 parents in the control group.
Interventions:
Infants in the study group were co-bedded in incubators.
Main Outcome Measures:
Baseline and posttesting for parental state anxiety, maternal attachment, and parental satisfaction measures; infant sleep-wake synchronicity; physiological measures; and stress cue measures during baseline and activity.
Main Results:
Repeated measures 5 (time) x 2 (group) analysis of variance found significant differences in infant daily weight, feeding amount, and high-activity heart rate. There was no difference in parental state anxiety, maternal attachment, and parental satisfaction scores by group, except for higher baseline parental satisfaction scores in the co-bedded group.
Conclusions:
This research demonstrated the safety of co-bedding multiple-gestation infants in incubators but did not find any significant clinical improvement in infant or parental outcomes with co-bedding. Neonatal intensive-care unit providers should educate staff and parents about the potential benefits of co-bedding and consider developing policies and procedures for co-bedding in both incubators and cribs. Co-bedding of multiple-gestation infants may be provided as an adjunctive developmental care strategy if parents desire this intervention.
