Search results

This paper aims to investigate infant sensory patterns and their associations with previous perinatal loss, maternal-foetal attachment and postnatal maternal sensory patterns.

In a prospective cohort study, women with and without perinatal loss (N = 57) were recruited from an Australian public hospital. Participants were surveyed during pregnancy (maternal-foetal attachment, loss) and again postnatally (maternal/infant sensory patterns). Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses controlling for previous perinatal loss were conducted with infant sensory patterns as outcome variables.

“More than typical” infant low registration was associated with poorer quality of maternal-foetal attachment. “More than typical” infant sensory seeking was associated with previous perinatal loss and higher levels of maternal sensory seeking. “More than typical” infant sensory sensitivity was linked with previous perinatal loss, poorer quality of maternal-foetal attachment and higher maternal low registration. “More than typical” infant sensory avoidance was associated with poorer quality of maternal-foetal attachment and higher levels of maternal sensory sensitivity.

To support more typical infant sensory patterns, results point to the potential benefit of occupational therapists supporting pregnant women with previous perinatal loss; facilitating favourable maternal-foetal attachment; and educating new mothers on how their sensory patterns impact on interactions with their infant. Sensory modulation strategies that consider the sensory patterns of both mother and infant may be beneficial to promote engagement in co-occupations.

These findings are the first to suggest that previous perinatal loss, poorer quality of maternal-foetal attachment and higher levels of maternal postnatal sensory patterns represent risk factors for infant sensory patterns that are “more than typical.”

Research consistently shows that non-scientific bias, equity, and diversity trainings do not work, and often make bias and diversity problems worse. Despite these widespread failures, there is considerable reason for hope that effective, meaningful DEI efforts can be developed. One approach in particular, the bias habit-breaking training, has 15 years of experimental evidence demonstrating its widespread effectiveness and efficacy.

This article discusses bias, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts from the author’s perspective as a scientist–practitioner – the author draws primarily on the scientific literature, but also integrates insights from practical experiences working in DEI. The author provides a roadmap for adapting effective, evidence-based approaches from other disciplines (e.g. cognitive-behavioral therapy) into the DEI context and review evidence related to the bias habit-breaking training, as one prominent demonstration of a scientifically-validated approach that effects lasting, meaningful improvements on DEI issues within both individuals and institutions.

DEI trainings fail due to widespread adoption of the information deficit model, which is well-known as a highly ineffective approach. Empowerment-based approaches, in contrast, are highly promising for making meaningful, lasting changes in the DEI realm. Evidence indicates that the bias habit-breaking training is effective at empowering individuals as agents of change to reduce bias, create inclusion, and promote equity, both within themselves and the social contexts they inhabit.

In contrast to the considerable despair and pessimism around DEI efforts, the present analysis provides hope and optimism, and an empirically-validated path forward, to develop and test DEI approaches that empower individuals as agents of change.