Evidence-based practice means following guidance that rests on solid, reliable, repeatable research — rather than anecdote, tradition or marketing. For families and practitioners, it means leaning on trusted sources such as UNICEF, NICE, the World Health Organisation, Public Health England and First Steps Nutrition, asking who funded a study before trusting its claims, and recognising that established guidelines (like back-sleeping and weaning from six months) hold firm until genuinely compelling new evidence emerges.
The childcare industry is vast, and there is a wealth of information out there for families to pour over. But is all of it grounded in fact? How do we know what is and isn't reliable — and what does it actually mean to be evidence-based?
Anecdata versus the evidence base
As with most things, there is a great deal of misinformation about — especially around normal postpartum experiences such as baby sleep, baby feeding and baby poo. It can be genuinely difficult for parents to tell anecdote from fact.
Anecdata is what is commonly and collectively believed to be true: the old wives' tale that eating oats gives you a plentiful milk supply, say, or that holding babies too much will spoil them. The evidence base — information grounded in solid, reliable, scientific research — shows that neither of these is true, and yet they remain beliefs that many people hold and share.
The same goes for pervasive worries that carrying babies in slings, co-sleeping, breastfeeding beyond infancy, or picking your baby up every time they cry will produce a clingy, spoiled, difficult child. The evidence base shows none of that is true. Babies who form a secure attachment in infancy are more likely to grow up confident, with higher self-esteem, and to be more comfortably independent. Responsive parenting is firmly rooted in evidence.
Separating opinion from fact
So how do we separate opinion from fact, and what can we trust? Start with information from recognised world leaders in infant health and care. Sources such as Public Health England, UNICEF, NICE, the World Health Organisation and First Steps Nutrition are all trustworthy places to begin.
Most people aren't scientists and don't have the time or energy to sift through scientific papers. If you do have that interest or background, searching the medical journals can be fruitful — but even then, sources aren't automatically trustworthy. There are often flaws in sampling and research methods, so claims can be inconclusive, and it's always worth looking at who funded a study. Would research claiming that breastmilk and formula have identical properties be reliable if it were funded by a formula manufacturer? Unlikely.
The pull of marketing
Advertising has a powerful hold on parents. The baby industry is polarising and emotive, and companies thrive on the free advertising they get when people argue endlessly online.
Marketing is something we should always be cautious of. When it comes to products like formula and baby bottles, these are covered by the WHO Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and should be strictly regulated. Making health claims about bottles is against the Code — but that doesn't stop companies claiming their bottle is "best" for breastfed babies, for example.
Following the guidelines
When we talk about evidence-based practice, we mean following guidance that has a solid research base. The UK guidance for introducing solid foods from around six months, for instance, has been in place since 2003, drawn from comprehensive research gathered over the preceding decades. It remains unchanged despite newer studies making different claims, because there isn't yet enough compelling evidence to justify a change.
In 1991, the Back to Sleep campaign began after Peter Fleming's work showed that placing babies to sleep on their fronts sharply increased the risk of SIDS. At that time, babies were dying at a rate of around 1 in every 250 born. Since the campaign launched, SIDS rates in the UK have fallen by around 85%, to roughly 1 in 3,000. The evidence for putting babies to sleep on their backs stays in place because it is reliable, robust and replicable.
That is the nature of a robust evidence base: it changes when new evidence comes to light and can be repeated in experiments showing the same results, or when a meta-analysis of existing research supports a different conclusion.
Making informed choices
Not everyone wants to follow guidance to the letter, and parents will make whatever decisions feel right for their own families. But we can't make informed choices about our children's health and wellbeing without access to good-quality, reliable information. If the information is poor, we risk taking chances with our babies that we would never knowingly take — simply because we didn't know any different.
Learn to work from the evidence
At Babyem we're passionate about helping parents and practitioners make informed choices based on evidence-based practice. Our accredited courses are taught by PhD-level educators, clinicians and published authors.
Want to talk it through? Call 0208 986 9008 or email info@babyem.co.uk. For further reading, AIMS, BASIS (Baby Sleep Information Source), the Lactation Consultants of Great Britain and the Association of Tongue Tie Practitioners are all reliable UK resources.