BlogHer - Birth Spacing for Better Health? - Comments

I love talking about myself

Hsien Lei — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 04:45:27 -0500

Totally! One of my favorite sketches has this tagline:

"We don't have much time.
So I'll just tell you about me."

LOL

~~~~~
Channel Editor, b5media.com
Community Director, wurk.net

I love science, stories, and stories that incorporate science

Mary Tsao — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:29:23 -0500

Hsien,
I didn't take your post seriously (or at least, not seriously in a negative, want to rip apart the methodology type of way.) I just felt like talking/writing about myself. :)

I love the fact you took the study and are using it to aid in your personal exploration about whether or not to have a second kid. Cool! I recently blogged a "scientific study" I performed on myself to determine if I was happy when doing housework. I certainly hope no scientist finds it and attempts to point out why it doesn't qualify as a true scientific study. Because I know it doesn't. But it was still fun to do.

Mary
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy & Family
Mom Writes

Correlation/causality

debra roby — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:08:36 -0500

One of my favorite phrases I learned from my scientist-spouse is:

You might show a correlation; you cannot prove a causality.

I've found it applies to many of the studies I read.

(of course, we were discussing the appearance of my gray hair and our marriage.. but the concept still holds...)

Debra
A Stitch In Time
Simple Still Life

Association does not prove causation

Hsien Lei — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:40:57 -0500

Thanks, Mir. Most everyone I know has memorized the mantra "association does not prove causation" but like you said, not everyone really believes it. I don't think the birth spacing study has everyone freaking out or anything. I was certainly speaking (writing?) tongue-in-cheek. That's the trouble with blogs sometimes...if you all knew how wishy washy I was about having a second kid, then you would not have taken my post so seriously. On the other hand, mipmup might not have posted about it either had she known I was only half serious. ;)

Also, this made great fodder for a rant about science. :D

True enough :)

Mir Kamin — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:28:58 -0500

Thanks for weighing in, and I hope you didn't feel I was picking on your blog. My quibble--as stated above, although perhaps not very clearly--is not with my personal story or anyone else's meaning the study is wrong. My issue is with studies that prove a relationship and as a result, folks rush to cry "cause!" when in reality, it's a matter of correlation.

Having the information is great; knowing what to DO with it is the key. And that's where it becomes important to tease apart the relationships between data.

Also, I should have said before--great post, mipmup!

--
Mir from WCS
(BlogHer Mommy & Family contributing editor)

Personal: Woulda Coulda Shoulda

At Ty's Toy Box: Listen to your Mommy!

Science cannot be superceded by personal anecdotes

Hsien Lei — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:25:40 -0500

Studies like this one are published in peer reviewed, prestigious medical journals like JAMA not because they're perfect, but because they examine an important issue by systematically collecting representative data following standardized scientific methodology. While your personal experiences can't be debated (and I'm glad everything worked out for you guys!), they are still anecdotal evidence.

Population studies give a more accurate understanding of the effects of birth spacing on maternal and chid health and its implications for family planning, esp. in developing countries where these issues are of particular concern. Those of us in developed countries with good medical care may not need to be overly concerned about optimally spacing births or even maternal age for that matter, but the majority of the world's women aren't so lucky.

Hsien-Hsien Lei, PhD of Cotton-Pickin' Days (my personal blog)
Science and Health Editor
b5media.com

right on ;)

Mir Kamin — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:04:36 -0500

Mary, you know my two are similarly spaced (20 months) and I wholeheartedly agree with the "best of friends" endorsement. Sure, I don't remember much of that first exhausted year as a mom to two, but I wouldn't trade anything for the closeness my kids share.

And my second was also 3 days late. ;)

--
Mir from WCS
(BlogHer Mommy & Family contributing editor)

Personal: Woulda Coulda Shoulda

At Ty's Toy Box: Listen to your Mommy!

Maybe I should have read this before...

Mary Tsao — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:33:34 -0500

...I had my kids 17 months apart.

But in all seriousness, I chose to have my kids that close together and it was the right choice for both the kids (who are the best of friends) and my family. As far as the adverse perinatal outcomes noted by the study:
* Preterm birth
My second child was born 3 days past his due date.
* Low birth weight
He weighed a full pound more than his older sister and was a healthy weight: 7 lbs. 15 oz.
* Small for gestational age
No.

I know I can't just throw my own figures into a controlled study, but there they are. I made the decision to have my kids that close together, I don't regret it, and I recommend it to other moms who are contemplating the big question: when to have #2.

That being said, I have missed out on a few "actual conversations with the other adults," but not many.

Interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it up. Also, I love that photo.

Mary
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy & Family
Mom Writes

I hate studies like this

Mir Kamin — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:47:46 -0500

Honestly, oughtn't there be a law that such studies directly address causation vs. correlation?

I've read the synopsis of the study and I'm not convinced that it was well-controlled enough for the conclusions to be attributed to birth spacing. I mean, yes, it's interesting. But people grab stuff like this and run with it, and I think data ends up being painted with a much broader brush than is appropriate.

Example: Supposedly the study was controlled for maternal age and economic status (I'm not even convinced that was done appropriately, but let's assume it's true). How many confounding factors are there at the shorter birthing interval end of the spectrum? Failed birth control (complications from getting pregnant on the pill?), infertility (rush to conceive again, complications from treatment), etc.

I'm just not convinced this study will hold up. I guess we'll see.

--
Mir from WCS
(BlogHer Mommy & Family contributing editor)

Personal: Woulda Coulda Shoulda

At Ty's Toy Box: Listen to your Mommy!

Birth Spacing for Better Health?

mipmup — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:41:38 -0500

Contributing Editor mipmup also blogs at mipmup.

The health and social implications of "birth spacing," the interval of time between childbirth, was new to me until I did some reading today.

I read a post at Cotton-Pickin' Days, a blog from the U.K., which tells us about some of the "adverse perinatal outcomes" and links to the new article about birth spacing which appears in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Bideshi Blonde based in Chittagong, Bangladesh suggests big pharma may need to rethink marketing the pill as "birth spacing" in her country.

Tales from the Orchid Garden spaced her children four years apart and tells us how she anticipates being able to sit by the pool having "...actual conversations with the other adults."

photo credit: Rick Hawkins
-----
mipmup.
Contributing Editor, Health & Wellness

For more by mipmup, read:
BlogHer archive for mipmup
mipmup.