Faithful Mom? Healthier Baby? Not Really
November 15, 2009 by Marijke Durning, RN
Filed under Morning News, Womens Health
What does a woman’s fidelity have to do with her unborn child’s health? A lot, if the news reports of a study from New Zealand are right. The results of the study were published in the most recent issue of Journal of Reproductive Immunology.
Actually, if you really read the study, it’s not the faithfulness that was the issue, it was how much the woman was exposed to the father’s semen. You know how I caution people to read studies carefully and not take news at face value? Here is yet another case. The news that came out of this study shows you how headlines can blow things out of proportion.
These “news” sources published exactly the same thing, which means they were using a press release:
- Faithful mothers have healthier babies (PhysOrg.com)
- Faithful mothers have healthier babies (Science News)
- Faithful Mothers Have Healthier Babies (Medical News Today)
On the other hand, the real information is here:
Do you see the difference in the titles? Nowhere does it say fidelity or faithfulness – it says duration of sexual relationship. There’s a HUGE difference between the two. There are several reasons why a woman may not be exposed to the father’s semen after pregnancy. I can think of a few right off the top of my head:
- Father is away on deployment or other work-related issues right after conception
- Mother is away on work-related issues
- Mother (or father) doesn’t want to have sex
- Couple breaks up
- Father is unable to have sexual relation for some reason after conception
- Baby was conceived through methods other than sexual relations
Ok, here’s the real story:
Researchers followed 2507 women who were pregnant for the first time and were carrying only one child (meaning no twins or more). The women were asked about how long they had been with the father of the child, because the shorter the relationship, the less the woman was exposed to his semen.
The goal of the study was to see if women who had shorter sexual relationships with the biological father of the child had a higher risk of having a condition called pre-eclampsia – high blood pressure due to pregnancy – and/or smaller babies.
Briefly, what the researchers found was this was true. Women in longer sexual relationships had a lower risk of developing pre-eclampsia than women in shorter relationships.
There were 1,462 uncomplicated pregnancies within the group of mothers. Among the rest, 131 did develop pre-eclampsia and 263 had babies small for gestational age.
The researchers found that women who were in the shorter relationships did have a higher rate of pre-eclampsia, but this wasn’t found absolutely for babies of small gestational age.
Interestingly, at the 20 week ultrasound, doctors did find a problem with the uterine artery, the blood vessel that provides blood to the uterus, in 58 women and more of those women were the ones in the shorter relationship group.
So – now that you know what the study really said, what do you think?
This is pretty bad alright. Google “Faithful Healthier Babies” and you’ll see how far this misinformation has travelled — it has circled the globe. Most distressing are the number of science news sites that use the bad headline. I searched for the original press release and it appears to have been issued by a PR company in New Zealand: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/fo1b-fmh111209.php
Perhaps you should send your article to the authors of the paper (noted on the above link) telling them how badly the headline writer misinterpreted their study. — Bruce
Thanks Bruce – I took your suggestion. I suspect they already know, but it doesn’t hurt to add to the chorus of “yes, I did understand what your study was saying.”
Just another reminder to heed that grain of salt with every “news” story you hear and read.