Does wearable baby tech really monitor for SIDS?
Does this create a safe haven or a false sense of security? I look at studies from pediatric experts who've studied this tech on two devices.
Say the word “SIDS” and any new parents’ face will probably drop. It’s one of the most terrifying issues parents are warned against, and it often feels like prevention is out of our control.
SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome, is the unexplained death of a healthy baby who is less than a year old, usually occurring during sleep, according to the Mayo Clinic. There is no definite cause, although prevention guidelines emphasize safe sleep guidelines as a way to significantly decrease the risk.
In an effort to further reduce the chances, some parents turn to tech to monitor and report on their babies while they slumber. But does research back up any of these methods as viable ways to reduce the risk of SIDS?
Researchers like Dr. Christopher Bonafide, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine and pediatric hospitalist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and his team of experts have studied tech that is marketed to check if your baby is breathing while he sleeps.
"Parents are buying these not just to tell them when things are OK, but to tell them when something is wrong," Bonafide told Good Morning America in an interview. "What we're showing is how these monitors are failing them to some degree." (Bonafide didn’t respond to my request for an interview. He’s probably too busy taking care of kids and I’m betting he gets these requests often.)
One study he led found two major brands of wearable baby monitors repeatedly sent false alarms, and one failed to detect problems in oxygen levels, according to a 2018 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The consumer monitors were used on babies ages newborn to 6 months alongside an FDA-approved, hospital-grade pulse oximeter to check the monitors’ findings.
The study looked at the Owlet Smart Sock 2 (which is no longer sold but is sold as a sleep monitor with bio-tracking features) and the Baby Vida oxygen monitor. It found that the Owlet sock detected hypoxemia (a low level of oxygen in the blood) most of the time when it occurred but “performed inconsistently” and had a handful of false negatives and some false negatives.
On a personal note, I know what it’s like to have false positives on an Owlet Smart Sock 2. My son had been a NICU baby, so we got a rocky start, and I got an Owlet to quell my anxiety about SIDS. When the sock was barely loose or if my son kicked too much, the Owlet would scream at me with a high-pitched wail and bright red lights from the alert base. I’d jump out of bed and crash into his bedroom, waking him up from a safe and peaceful slumber, and then we’d both cry. No one was having a good time.
The Baby Vida never detected hypoxemia — even when it was actually happening — and actually had half as many false negatives as accurate readings. It didn’t give any false positives.
“As more neonate and infant vital sign monitors emerge in this largely unregulated market, physicians and parents should exercise caution incorporating data from these monitors into medical decisions,” the study advised.
Another study he was involved in, titled “The Emerging Market of Smartphone-Integrated Infant Physiologic Monitors” evaluates the reach of these smart tech devices in 2017 and concluded that even though scientific data on the safety and efficacy of these devices were lacking, the public demand was booming. He would later become part of the team that would begin to fill that data gap.
“Despite the lack of publicly available evidence supporting the safety, accuracy, effectiveness, or role of these monitors in the care of well infants, sales of these products are brisk and the market is expanding,” the study stated.
All this is one reason why the FDA wouldn’t give approval for Owlet’s smart sock to be sold as a medical device, rather than a sleep monitor, which is how it’s sold now.
Tech like bands, anklets, and socks can be helpful to monitor your child if you are particularly anxious about their health, but don’t think they replace medical devices or safe sleep techniques. The American Academy of Pediatricians’ safe sleep practices are considered the “gold standard” for preventing SIDS. They include:
Babies should be placed on their back, alone, on a firm and flat surface like a bassinet or crib.
Sitting devices, such as car seats, strollers, swings, infant carriers, and infant slings, are not recommended for routine sleep in the hospital or at home, particularly for infants younger than 4 months.
AAP recommends that parents sleep in the same room – but not in the same bed as a baby, preferably for at least the first six months.
Pacifier use is associated with reducing risk.
Breastfeeding reduces the risk of sleep-related infant deaths, and while any human milk feeding is more protective than none, 2 months of feeding at least partial human milk feeding has been demonstrated to significantly lower the risk of sleep-related deaths.
Avoid the use of commercial devices that claim to reduce the risk of SIDS or other sleep-related deaths. There is no evidence that any of these devices reduce the risk of these deaths. Importantly, the use of products claiming to increase sleep safety may provide a false sense of security and complacency for caregivers. Do not use home cardiorespiratory monitors as a strategy to reduce the risk of SIDS.