- Journal List
- BMC Res Notes
- v.13; 2020
- PMC7491191
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
BMC Res Notes. 2020; 13: 430.
Published online 2020 Sep 14. doi:10.1186/s13104-020-05282-0
PMCID: PMC7491191
PMID: 32928289
Joelle Mardini,#1,2 Clara Rahme,#3 Odette Matar,4 Sophia Abou Khalil,4 Souheil Hallit,
#1,5 and Marie-Claude Fadous Khalife#1,2
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Associated Data
- Data Availability Statement
Abstract
Objective
To try to find the most appropriate time for the newborn’s first bath. This prospective randomized study was conducted in one hospital (July–September 2017).
Results
A higher percentage of newborns who had a skin-to-skin contact with their mothers had their bath at 24h vs 2h after birth (65.2% vs 33.3%; p = 0.01). A higher percentage of mothers who helped in their baby’s bath had their baby’s bath at 24h vs 2h (65.2% vs 5.9%; p < 0.001) and vs 6h (65.2% vs 15.7%; p < 0.001) respectively. A higher mean incubation time was seen between newborns who had their bath at 2h (2.10 vs 1.78; p = 0.002) and 6h (2.18 vs 1.78; p = 0.003) compared to those who had their bath at 24h respectively. A higher percentage of newborns who took their first bath 24h after birth were calm compared to crying vigorously (38.6% vs 9.1%; p = 0.04). Delaying newborn first bath until 24h of life was associated with benefits (reducing hypothermia and vigorous crying, benefit from the vernix caseosa on the skin and adequate time of skin-to-skin contact and mother participation in her child’s bathing.
Keywords: Neonates, Bathing time, Incubation time, 24-h status, Vernix caseosa
Introduction
Bathing of the newborn is a part of routine care in hospital nurseries. The aim of the first bath is to remove undesired fluids as blood and meconium on the newborn’s body and to provide hydration to the stratum corneum of the newborn’s skin in order to maintain skin integrity, barrier function property and body temperature [1]. There is an ongoing debate about when the first bath should be given. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that newborns should not be given a bath in the first 24h but to wait until their vital signs become stable, especially that this will leave residual vernix caseosa intact allowing it to wear off with normal care and handling [2]. If this is not possible for cultural reasons, bathing should be delayed at least 6h after birth to allow the neonate to pass into extra-uterine life, thus enabling the bonding of the mother to the newborn [2]. However, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN) recommends giving first bath when cardio-respiratory stability has been achieved, which means to wait up to 2h after delivery [3]; whereas the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) says that bathing and other treatments should be initiated no sooner than 1h after birth, so that maternal-infant contact is not interrupted [4].
One of the many benefits of delaying first bath is waiting for the newborn’s temperature to stabilize around 36.8 degrees Celsius or higher in order to prevent the risk of hypothermia, which is higher in the first hour after birth [5]. A second benefit is allowing to keep intact the vernix caseosa which is a protective fetal film that acts as a chemical and mechanical barrier in utero, with the thickest coating accumulating between 36 and 38weeks of gestation [6]. The benefits of leaving this coating is protection from infection, skin cleansing and moisturizing and protection from the activity of host defense proteins important for innate immunity [6]. Another idea is that bathing has an influence on skin colonization with microorganisms because it is thought that the skin of the fetus is usually sterile unless there was a premature rupture of membranes [6]. After delivery, a variety of microorganisms will colonize the skin and this is affected by the type of delivery: vagin*l or cesarean section. In vagin*l delivery, the skin will contain bacteria resembling the mother’s vagin*l flora, whereas in cesarean section it will reflect the skin flora of the mother [7].
A very important factor after childbirth is the skin-to-skin contact where the newborn baby is placed naked on the mother's bare chest at birth or shortly afterwards [8, 9]. Evidence supporting the practice of post-birth skin-to-skin contact (SSC) is strong, suggesting multiple benefits for both mother and child. Advantages for the mother include early elimination of the placenta, reduced bleeding, improved self-efficacy of breastfeeding, and decreased maternal stress [9]. Advantages for the infant include a reduction in the negative consequences of “stress of birth”, more appropriate thermoregulation, persisted even in the first days and less crying [9]. Another factor is incubator time defined as the amount of time in the incubator needed to achieve thermal stability [10]. In fact, the first bath should be postponed until the newborn is thermally stable because bathing is associated with a significant loss of heat [10]. The objective of our study is to try to find the most appropriate time for the newborn’s first bath, and conclude if it is compatible with the WHO recommendations.
Main text
Methods
Study design
This pilot study, part of the evaluation of professional practices (EPP; quality improvement project), was prospective, conducted in the maternity department of the Notre-Dame des Secours University Hospital Center from July until September 2017 after approval of the hospital’s ethics committee. Newborns were divided randomly by dice roll into groups: Group 1 when getting number 1 or 2 on the dice, group 2 when getting number 3 or 4 and group 3 when getting number 5 or 6. Group 1 included newborns taking their first bath at 2h of age, Groups 2 and 3 were formed by newborns taking their first bath at 6 and 24h of age respectively (Fig.1). Babies whose mothers requested to bath them earlier than 2h were excluded from the study. In the absence of similar studies tackling the same outcomes, this study was considered as a pilot one, with no minimal sample size calculated. A total of 125 neonates was enrolled at the end of the data collection. There were no other inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Fig. 1
Flow chart summarizing the study design
Questionnaire
The variables collected were maternal age, mother’s level of education, occupation, age at time of delivery, parity, gestational age, and bathing assistance (mother’s choice to assist with her newborn’s first bath or not). Other variables evaluated any possible association between delaying first bath and age of first skin-to-skin contact (putting the naked baby at the mother’s bare chest directly after primary care has been given), incubation time (time necessary to achieve thermal stability) and newborn status (vigorous crying or calm). All these variables were assessed while taking into consideration the mother’s need and the health care team availability.
The quality of amniotic fluid was noted in every baby and the presence of vernix caseosa on the skin of each baby was evaluated at 2h, 6h, and 24h of age and then noted in each baby’s file as positive (presence of vernix) or negative (absence of vernix). After the first bath, skin temperature was taken every 2 to 3h for 24h. A subjective assessment of the general state of the baby was done by two experienced midwives to classify each baby as being calm, sleepy, or having vigorous screaming.
Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis of the results was made via SPSS version 22. Frequencies/percentages as well as means and standard deviations were used to describe categorical and continuous variables respectively. The sample did not have a normal distribution; therefore, non-parametric tests were used for the bivariate analysis. The Chi-square test was used to compare between categorical variables; the Fisher’s exact test was used when the number of cells was less than 5. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare 3 or more means. P < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results
Fifty-one children took their bath at 2h, whereas 51 and 23 children took their bath at 6 and 24h respectively.
Bivariate analysis of factors associated with the newborn’s bath timing
A significant association was seen between the mother-baby skin-to-skin contact and the newborn’s bath timing for the whole trend and between newborns who had their bath at 2h and 24h; a significantly higher percentage of newborns who had their bath 2h after birth did not have a skin-to-skin contact with their mothers directly after birth (after first care was done). (65.2% vs 33.3%; p = 0.01). A significant association was seen between the mother’s assistance with newborn’s bath for the whole trend, and between newborns who had their bath at 2 vs 6h and 2 vs 24h respectively. A significantly higher percentage of mothers who helped in their baby’s bath had their baby’s bath at 24h vs 2h (65.2% vs 5.9%; p < 0.001) and vs 6h (65.2% vs 15.7%; p < 0.001) respectively. A significant association was seen between the incubation time and the newborn’s bath timing for the whole trend, and between groups 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 3 respectively. A significantly higher mean incubation time was seen between newborns who had their bath at 2h (2.10 vs 1.78; p = 0.002) and 6h (2.18 vs 1.78; p = 0.003) compared to those who had their bath at 24h respectively (Table (Table11).
Table 1
Bivariate analysis of factors associated with the newborn’s bath timing
| Variable | Group 1 (2h) | Group 2 (6h) | Group 3 (24h) | p between 3 groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of the mother (in years) | 0.543 | |||
| 20–25 | 7 (13.7%) | 8 (15.7%) | 4 (17.4%) | |
| 26–30 | 22 (43.1%) | 14 (27.5%) | 7 (30.4%) | |
| > 30 | 22 (43.1%) | 29 (56.9%) | 12 (52.2%) | |
| Education level | 0.210 | |||
| Primary | 11 (21.6%) | 4 (7.8%) | 1 (4.3%) | |
| Secondary | 6 (11.8%) | 9 (17.6%) | 4 (17.4%) | |
| University | 34 (66.7%) | 38 (74.5%) | 18 (78.3%) | |
| Profession | 0.571 | |||
| Unemployed | 23 (45.1%) | 20 (39.2%) | 12 (52.2%) | |
| Employed | 28 (54.9%) | 31 (60.8%) | 11 (47.8%) | |
| Delivery method | 0.537 | |||
| Normal | 32 (62.7%) | 31 (60.8%) | 17 (73.9%) | |
| Cesarean | 19 (37.3%) | 20 (39.2%) | 6 (26.1%) | |
| Parity | 0.899 | |||
| 1 | 20 (39.2%) | 21 (41.2%) | 10 (43.5%) | |
| 2 | 21 (41.2%) | 17 (33.3%) | 9 (39.1%) | |
| 3 and more | 10 (19.6%) | 13 (25.5%) | 4 (17.4%) | |
| Skin-to-skin contact mother-baby | 0.027 | |||
| No | 34 (66.7%) | 25 (49.0%) | 8 (34.8%) | |
| Yes | 17 (33.3%) | 26 (51.0%) | 15 (65.2%) | |
| Incubation | 0.795 | |||
| No | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Yes | 50 (98.0%) | 50 (98.0%) | 23 (100%) | |
| Mother’s assistance with newborn’s bath | < 0.001 | |||
| No | 48 (94.1%) | 43 (84.3%) | 8 (34.8%) | |
| Yes | 3 (5.9%) | 8 (15.7%) | 15 (65.2%) | |
| Vernix caseosa | 0.154 | |||
| No | 26 (51.0%) | 32 (62.7%) | 17 (73.9%) | |
| Yes | 25 (49.0%) | 19 (37.3%) | 6 (26.1%) | |
| Number of previous pregnancies | 2.24 ± 1.24 | 2.33 ± 1.54 | 1.96 ± 0.98 | 0.747 |
| Duration of the mother-baby skin to skin contact | 1.71 ± 0.77 | 1.52 ± 0.70 | 1.67 ± 0.62 | 0.579 |
| Incubation time | 2.10 ± 0.36 | 2.18 ± 0.66 | 1.78 ± 0.52 | 0.002 |
Open in a separate window
Post hoc analysis: skin to skin contact with the mother (group 1 vs 3: p = 0.01); mother’s assistance with newborn’s bath (group 1 vs 3: p < 0.001 and group 2 vs 3: p < 0.001); incubation time (group 1 vs 3: p = 0.002 and group 2 vs 3: p = 0.003)
A significantly higher percentage of newborns who took their first bath 24h after birth were calm compared to the other two groups who were crying vigorously (38.6% vs 9.1%; p = 0.04) (Table (Table22).
Table 2
Association between the first bath timing and the newborn status
| Variable | Newborn status | p values | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calm | Somnolent | Crying | p between 3 groups | p 1–2 | p 1–3 | p 2–3 | |
| First bath timing | 0.07 | 0.096 | 0.04 | 0.690 | |||
| 2h | 35 (34.7%) | 6 (75.0%) | 10 (62.5%) | ||||
| 6h | 44 (43.6%) | 2 (25.0%) | 5 (31.3%) | ||||
| 24h | 22 (21.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (6.3%) | ||||
Open in a separate window
p 1–2 = p between groups 1 and 2; p 1–3 = p between groups 1 and 3; p 2–3 = p between groups 2 and 3
Discussion
The inability of the infant to self-regulate their temperature puts them at risk of many complications, including hypothermia, hypoglycemia and infection, making it important to ensure early stabilization after birth [11].
In this pilot EPP study, a significantly higher percentage of newborns who had their bath 2h after birth did not have a skin-to-skin contact with their mothers directly after birth (after first care was done). A previous study found that skin-to-skin touch helps in thermoregulation during a newborn transition from intrauterine to extrauterine [10]. Actually, newborn thermoregulation is the main consideration of the timing of the first bath. According to Cheffer and Rannalli, a healthy newborn will develop independent thermoregulation during the transition with temperature stability between 36.4˚C and 37˚C. The transition period was defined as the first minutes after birth and continued up to 24 to 48h, with major transitions arising within the first 6 to 8h [10]. To this purpose, an early first bath will lead to the removal of the vernix and the disruption of skin-to-skin contact, which may affect the temperature of the infant and the bonding to his/her mother [12].
In addition, a significantly higher percentage of mothers’ assistance to their baby’s bath was seen in the group of babies bathed at 24h vs 2h and vs 6h respectively. This is in line with a previous research, which claimed that the delayed bathing technique enabled parents to take part in their newborn first bath [13]. Indeed, parents seemed more at ease and open to learning, and some were eager to take part in the bathing. This is an added benefit to demonstrate a healthy bath and have parents engage in an experience that can be overwhelming for first-time parents [13].
Our study showed that the majority of newborns who were bathed at 2h had to be reheated in the incubator for a longer period than the group of newborns taking their bath at 24h of life.; They were put in the incubator for 1h to monitor spO2 and temperature, if temperature went back to neutrality (between 36.5 and 37.5 degrees Celsius the baby was taken out of the incubator). The lowest temperature we had was 36 degrees. Newborns are particularly sensitive to changes in ambient temperature due to their small body mass and relatively large body surface areas [10]. A randomized study trial performed by Bergman et al. found better thermoregulation and cardiorespiratory safety in infants with SSC relative to those cared for in the incubator [14].
Furthermore, a significantly higher percentage of newborns who took their first bath 24h after birth were calm compared to those who took their bath at 2h. In reality, the babies who took their bath 24h after birth profited from the SSC, which gave them comfort and safety for the babies [12].
Conclusion and clinical implications
In our study, delaying newborn bathing beyond 12h of life, especially waiting till 24h of life was found to have several benefits. Beside the reduction of the risk of hypothermia and the need for warming in the incubator, it reduced vigorous crying and allowed the baby to benefit from the protective and moisturizing properties of the vernix caseosa, not to forget the most important benefit of all which was the satisfaction of mothers who were able to assist in their child bath especially when adequate skin to skin contact was provided at birth allowing mother and baby bond, especially that skin-to-skin contact is an important factor that enhances exclusive breastfeeding rates which is a topic that we are always promoting in our maternity department.
Limitations
Our study had some limitations. First, the type of the study being monocentric could lead to selection bias. Besides, an under or over estimation of a question could be experienced by the mother, leading to an information bias. In addition, the evaluation of the baby’s state during the day and the evaluation of the presence of vernix caseosa were subjective (assessment made by the midwives without a specific score to follow), and data about temperatures and mean age of first skin-to-skin contact were not collected. More than that, the number of health care workers required to follow the bathing scheduleasplannedwas limited, along with the workload of the nursery. Finally, the small number of children enrolled does not allow the extrapolation of the results to the general population. Future studies, considering all these limitations, should be conducted in order to confirm our results.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the mothers for accepting to be part of this study.
Abbreviations
| WHO | World Health Organization |
| AWHONN | Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses |
| NICE | National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence |
| SSC | Skin-to-skin contact |
Authors’ contributions
MCFK conceived and designed the study. OM and SAK performed the data collection and entry. JM and CR wrote the manuscript. SH involved to data interpretation and statistical analysis, edited the paper and revised the paper for intellectual content. All authors critically revised the manuscript for intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
None.
Availability of data and materials
There is no public access to all data generated or analyzed during this study to preserve the privacy of the identities of the individuals. The dataset that supports the conclusions is available to the corresponding author upon request.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Notre Dame de Secours university hospital center, Byblos, Lebanon. A written informed consent was obtained from each mother.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Joelle Mardini and Clara Rahme first co-authors
Souheil Hallit and Marie-Claude Fadous Khalife last co-authors
Contributor Information
Joelle Mardini, Email: moc.liamtoh@iinidramelleoj.
Clara Rahme, Email: moc.liamtoh@hemhar_aralk.
Odette Matar, Email: moc.liamg@ratam.a.ettedo.
Sophia Abou Khalil, Email: moc.kooltuo@aihposlilahkuoba.
Souheil Hallit, Email: moc.liamtoh@tillahliehuos.
Marie-Claude Fadous Khalife, Email: moc.liamtoh@454edualcm.
References
1. Kuller JM. Update on newborn bathing. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. 2014;14(4):166–170. doi:10.1053/j.nainr.2014.10.006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. WHO recommendations on postnatal care of the mother and newborn. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/97603/9789241506649_eng.pdf [PubMed]
3. New K. Evidence-based guidelines for infant bathing. 2019. https://www.researchreview.co.nz/getmedia/0a9e5190-b8ac-419f-8f44-43b8e5ba8c4b/Educational-Series-Evidence-based-guidelines-for-infant-bathing.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf
4. Clinical Guidelines And Evidence Review For Post Natal Care: Routine Post Natal Care Of Recently Delivered Women And Their Babies. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg37/evidence/full-guideline-485782237
5. Ruschel L, Pedrini D, Cunha M. Hypothermia and the newborn's bath in the first hours of life. Revista gaucha de enfermagem. 2018;39:e20170263–e20170263. doi:10.1590/1983-1447.2018.20170263. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Singh G, Archana G. Unraveling the mystery of vernix caseosa. Indian J Dermatol. 2008;53(2):54–60. doi:10.4103/0019-5154.41645. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Babies' gut bacteria affected by delivery method. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190918131447.htm
8. Moore ER, Bergman N, Anderson GC, Medley N: Early skin‐to‐skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2016(11). [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Widström AM, Brimdyr K, Svensson K, Cadwell K, Nissen E. Skin-to-skin contact the first hour after birth, underlying implications and clinical practice. Acta Paediatr. 2019;108(7):1192–1204. doi:10.1111/apa.14754. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Kelly PA, Classen KA, Crandall CG, Crenshaw JT, Schaefer SA, Wade DA, Cramer MN, Aryal S, Fossee KR. Effect of Timing of the First Bath on a Healthy Newborn’s Temperature. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2018;47(5):608–619. doi:10.1016/j.jogn.2018.07.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Anyanwu O, Hoffman R, Meynard L: Delaying the Newborn’s First Bath to Enhance Neonatal Stability. 2019.
12. Turney J, Lowther A, Pyka J, Fields W. Delayed newborn first bath and exclusive breastfeeding rates. Nursing for women's health. 2019;23(1):31–37. doi:10.1016/j.nwh.2018.12.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Suchy C, Morton C, Ramos RR, Ehrgott A, Quental MM, Burridge A, Rutledge DN. Does changing newborn bath procedure alter newborn temperatures and exclusive breastfeeding? Neonatal Network. 2018;37(1):4–10. doi:10.1891/0730-0832.37.1.4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Warren S: In healthy full and late pre-term babies, does delaying the first bath until at least 24 hours of life effect in-hospital breastfeeding rates, thermoregulation and glycemic control? : Memorial University of Newfoundland; 2018.
Articles from BMC Research Notes are provided here courtesy of BMC
