Letter in response to ‘Home phototherapy of term neonates improves parental bonding and stress: Findings from a randomised controlled trial’

Comments on an article by M. Pettersson et al. (see record [rid]2022-43019-010[/rid]). The article by Pettersson et al. investigated the potential benefits of treating newborn jaundice in the home environment, thus negating the requirement for lengthy hospital stays. Firstly, 52 potential participants declined to partake in this study. No specific reasoning was provided; therefore, one may speculate this may be because they felt uncomfortable managing their child's medical condition at home. These parents may have viewed the nearby presence of medical professionals as a protective factor, reducing anxiety and thus actually facilitating parental bonding. Additionally, parents with prior experience dealing with newborn jaundice may be comfortable managing this condition at home. Information regarding the number of previous children was not provided in this study. Therefore, one may imagine that first-time parents would be more comfortable in the hospital environment, leading to their exclusion from this study and causing an under-representation of their opinions. The authors used two phototherapy devices in this study, both having different mechanisms of action. Hospital-based therapy utilised the traditional ultraviolet lamp or the BiliSoft fibre optic device, a more modern ultraviolet blanket. Meanwhile, home therapy solely utilized the BiliSoft device. Using a blanket device allows the mother to coddle their child during treatment and promotes skin-to skin contact, contributing to a stronger maternal bond. Potentially, the separation of mother and child during traditional phototherapy treatment during the hospital stay may have negatively influenced the parental experience. The use of two different therapy devices has a clear potential impact, and therefore, group differences should be interpreted with caution. Finally, postpartum depression occurs within the first year after childbirth, with most cases occurring within the first six months. Therefore, it is plausible to suspect that some cases were missed, as assessment was performed once, four months after birth.