Strollerderby : surveys

Move Over Angie's List: It's the Birth Survey

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:30:00 GMT

The Internet is a wonderful thing for making our opinions known: We can rate our professors, our Amazon purchases, our contractors, and our favorite blog posts (hint, cough). Why not our midwives and doctors and hospitals?

After a pilot in New York City, the Coalition for the Improvement of Maternity Services has launched The Birth Survey to collect detailed information about mothers' experiences with their pre-natal, labor and delivery, and post-partum care. If you've given birth in the last three years, I strongly urge you to go fill it out. The sooner they get a volume of responses, the sooner other parents can get meaningful information on the options in their area. (NYC parents can already view the pilot data here.)

The survey is anonymous, and takes about 20 minutes (longer probably if you're ranking more than one care giver, which you have the option to do). It gives you almost entirely questions that are relevant to you based on your previous answers, which makes it much more pleasant to fill out than many surveys, especially on something that can go as many different ways as birth.

The questions focus on issues that feed into CIMS's 10 Steps to Mother-Friendly Childbirth, especially things like how much support and information care providers gave and how well they listened and respected parents' wishes, as well as breastfeeding support provided and what sorts of procedures were done during labor and delivery and what rationales were given for them.

I also took the demo survey to see what kind of questions they asked about hospital births, and though it's clear they are concerned about high c-section rates, for example, I think they did a good job of being non-judgmental and focused on the mother's experience and assessment. And in case the survey brings up bad memories for anyone who had even half as miserable an experience as Catherine Skol (the Chicago mom suing her abusive OB), they also provide links to networks of counselors experienced in helping with birth trauma at the end of the survey.

If you've always wanted to officially record your displeasure with or your gratitude for (or ambivalence about) your birth attendants, now's the time!

Photo by peretzpup.

Related Posts:

Mother Sues OB Who Said She Deserved Pain—And Gave It to Her

More by this author:

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

Brett Singer — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Sometimes I read a news story and feel like I'm actually reading The Onion. Does that ever happen to you?

For example: this report from Japan that finds a link between middle school students and teen sex. Basically, middle schoolers who do not partake of the most important meal of the day are more likely to get a head start on making the out-of-wedlock beast with two backs. (That's an unnecessarily silly way of saying "having sex.")

What exactly inspires a study like this one? Were researchers conducting interviews with sexually active middle schoolers in the morning hours and thought that they looked a little hungry? Not exactly. The survey isn't talking about sexually active middle schoolers. That would be creepy. It specifically found that the "average age of first-time sex for those who said they ate breakfast every day as a middle school student was 19.4, while for those who skipped breakfast, the average age was 17.5."

It gets better. I'm going to quote this line because it may be one of the greatest sentences in the history of journalism: "The average age of first-time sex was lower for those who found their mother annoying." (See what I mean? Doesn't that sound like it should have been in The Onion?) Those who "said they disliked their mother" starting gettin' it on at the age of 16, on average. Folks who "appreciated their mother" didn't lose their virginity until the ripe old age of 19.

No word on whether or not girls with "daddy issues" were slutty, or whether or not sibling rivalries were the main cause of homosexuality. (I'm kidding, of course. But if that's the next survey this association conducts, I won't be all that shocked.)

Kunio Kitamura, executive director of the Japan Family Planning Association, conducted the survey. The quotes attributed to Kitamura are hopefully the result of a poor translation from Japanese: "The fact that people can't eat breakfast may show something about their family environment. Before blaming individuals for having sex at an early age, it may be necessary to look into the sort of homes they are from." In other words, it's not your kids' fault they're having sex. It's because the muffins were stale that morning. Oh, and you're a crummy parent. And your kids don't respect you as a mother. Or all of the above.

Hey, here's an idea. How about studying the TYPE of breakfast consumed? That is, are middle schoolers who consume mostly oatmeal in the morning more or less likely to engage in sexual activity before they turn 18 than children who eat pancakes? And what about if they have bacon with their pancakes? And why stop at breakfast? What about lunch? Does french fry consumption increase or decrease the likelihood of future sexual activity?

So if you don't want your kids to start having sex too young, make sure they eat breakfast. In middle school.

Ah, science. We have come so far. And yet, not so far at all.

Source: Reuters

Image: tamarackwv.com

No Christmas Specials for Some Jewish Kids

Nature Lovers Also Annoyed About Children's Dictionary

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

Are You Cutting Back This Holiday Season?

Brett Singer — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:00:00 GMT

In case you haven't heard, the economy has been doing its imitation of David Caruso's career before he got a part on CSI: Miami (and if anyone can tell me what show that line is from, I will be impressed because it's pretty random). Which begs the question: are you going to spend less this year than you have in the past?

TodaysMama.com released the results of their survey, which says that a whopping "85 percent of moms plan to cut holiday spending due to economic conditions." (I guess all of the dads were too busy playing fantasy football and visiting strip clubs to participate in the survey. I kid.)

From the press release:

SALT LAKE CITY.– November 24, 2008 – TodaysMama.com today announced the results of their 2008 Holiday Economic Survey, revealing that 85% of Moms across the United States are trimming their holiday budgets due to concern about the long-term economic outlook. Of those, 14% plan to cut holiday spending by an astounding 75%, and 32% will cut holiday spending by 50%. The survey, which included 1050 respondents, also found that 62% of Moms do not plan to shop on Black Friday, and 66% believe it will take two to three years for the economy to recover.

So – moms, dads, and everyone else – how about you? Will gifts be closer to "a package of socks" rather than "a flat-screen television"? (Nothing wrong with that, by the way. I could use some new socks.) Are you planning to cut back on your spending this year?

source: TodaysMama.com

image: CCTV Blog

Will Black Friday Deals Be Good This Year?

Maybe The 80s Are Retro

Children opposed to healthcare (Onion Video)

Brett Singer — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:00:00 GMT

You know, so often with issues that face our society, we fail to ask: what about the children?

Healthcare is a hot-button issue in the upcoming Presidential election. The Onion presents reports on a study that shows that kids, when asked if they would like to go to the doctor more often, respond "NOOOO!!!!!" in overwhelming numbers. "The vast majority of children," they say, "do not want healthcare."

This is, of course, a joke. But it rings true, especially the closing line of the video.

Egyptian woman gives birth to septuplets because she wanted a boy

5 reasons it's a good thing I had boys

Is 'Nothing But Tears' Shampoo a Good Idea?

S&M Barbie

Baby Penis Album only five bucks

Bored games

Like father like son

Oy vey, Miley showed her tuchas again

Hunka hunka burnin Barbie

Upcoming Sesame Street Guests

10 Things Adults Don't Mind (that Kids Try to Avoid)

More Kids Stuff I like that my kids don't care about

5 things that would make parents' lives easier

It all started when Mary needed a laxative

People spending less on Mother's Day this year

Brett Singer — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:30:00 GMT

It's not that much less, actually – a poll by the National Retail Federation (whose slogan should be "SHOP! NOW!", just cuz that would be funny) found that people will spend 51 cents less this year than they did last year. That doesn't sound too bad.

What is slightly surprising is how much they spend, and how it breaks down by age. The overall average, says the survey, is $138.63; the number was $139.14 in 2007. But, according to Newsday, "if your child is in the 18- to 24-year-old age group…they'll be the big spenders, averaging $170.71 for their Mother's Day gift, up from $137.73 -- fourth out of five age groups -- in 2007." One 22 year old is quoted as saying that he's spending less this year because of his pending college graduation. The article doesn't say whether or not his parents were footing the bill for school, but I'm going to guess that perhaps this fact could skew the data a bit. When mom and dad are paying off the credit card, hey, go nuts. Once it's your money? Uh-uh. (I acknowledge that this is a huge assumption that may not be true, so if I'm wrong, tell me in the comments.)

In my case, my gift-giving budget has increased with my income level, but at the same time, it's not about how much you spend. I learned that the hard way one year when I thought it would be okay to wait until Monday to give mom her present. I was pretty young at the time (maybe 10 or 11) and I had made something at school that wasn't ready yet. When I told mom on Sunday that I would give her the gift tomorrow, it became clear very quickly that this was not a good solution. I immediately went out and picked up something small – flowers, candy, a card – and brought it home. Problem solved, lesson learned. Don't mess with mom.

So, keeping in mind that it really is the thought that counts, does $135+ sound right to everyone? Too much? Not enough? How much are you planning to spend?

image: 123greetings.com

What is mommy worth?

Brett Singer — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:35:00 GMT

This story pops up every now and then. The question is: how much would mom get paid if her job were in the private sector?

The Daily News reports on a study from MomConnection that has come up with a number for moms in New York. And… drum roll please…

$70,000 a year.

They came up with this amount using data from the web site salaryexpert.com.

As for what the women surveyed think they should get if they were to receive a yearly salary, "34% said $100,000, 31% said $50,000, 27% said $75,000 and 8% said $25,000." Man, I'd like to meet the women who said $25,000. Cheap date.

I say "women" because this survey was specifically about stay at home moms. I'm not crying discrimination or anything like that but it still surprises me how often articles like this read as if they were written in the 1950's.

Here's the best part (a quote from someone at MomConnection):

These are Generation Y moms in their 20s and early 30s who made a considered choice to become mothers…They are less likely to feel annoyed or to be whiny."

Oh! I see. As opposed to the whiny wimmen of Generation X, the Baby Boomers, and everyone who came before. Weren't they annoying? All that, "Wah! I want respect! I want equal pay! I'm whiny!" They didn't make a choice to become mothers. They were forced into it, right? (Grrr…)

So – I ask you, the readers. How would you respond? What do you think the salary for a mother should be? Or is what a mother does, to paraphrase the MasterCard ads, priceless?

image: The Daily News

Reese Witherspoon=Uber-Mom?

Brett Singer — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:10:00 GMT

Towards the end of the press release for a recent survey published by Coldwell Banker and BabyCenter ("Moms Today"), we are told the following: "13 percent of moms think Reese Witherspoon is the quintessential Modern Mom."

I have no problem with Reese Witherspoon, but what exactly makes her a "quintessential Modern Mom"? (For the record, I didn't add the emphasis on the word "quintessential.") The fact that she's divorced? Rich? Won an Oscar? Of the next two famous moms mentioned, Jennifer Garner (12 percent) has spent a lot of time in public with her offspring. But Brooke Shields (10 percent) had a very public thing with Tom Cruise when he got mad at her for having the nerve to take anti-depressants to treat post-partum depression. (To be fair, Tommy C did eventually apologize for that.) So I would have thought Brooke would've taken the top mom spot, but no.

Statements that rank parents using words like "quintessential" always seem strange to me. "Who would you most like to be for a day?" or "Which mother do you think is a good role model?" -- neither question is Earth-shaking but at least they make sense.

One positive thing I suppose is that none of the celeb-mothers listed are train wrecks, a la Britney. Which celebrity parent(s) do you like?

image: Wikipedia

The words every woman longs to hear: are you through yet?

Brett Singer — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:00:00 GMT

A survey has concluded that men with QDS (Quickie Dickie Syndrome) are doing just fine, thank you. The "optimal" time for intercourse is -- wait for it -- between three and thirteen minutes.

That's quite a range if you think about it, especially for parents. Three minutes, you can do your business while the kids are getting dressed for school. Finding thirteen minutes is much more difficult.

I'm not knocking anyone for the length of their "act" -- far from it. Once children are in your house, anytime you can find, you take. (Which is I had a little trouble buying this story.)

The researcher, Eric Corty ("who, it must be noted, is male" says the article -- nice) conducted his study to help couples "relax a little bit." Because obsessing over the length of your coitus is verrrry relaxing.

image: flickr.com

And apologies to Steve Martin, from whom I paraphrased the title of this post.

Good Idea or Bad Sit-Com Plot? Would You Want the President Living Next Door?

Madeline Holler — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:31:00 GMT

Man, Republican voters sure can be cranky. Looks like they'd prefer drawing the shades and locking down the gated community rather than rolling out the welcome wagon for certain new neighbors next door.

In a recent Zillow.com survey, Democrats, Republicans and Independents weighed in on which of the presidential candidates they would prefer living next to (hey, we've all been biding our time until this election finally gets underway tonight. Catch up on the highlights with Political Nanny.). Republicans chose "None" more than they chose Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Duncan Hunter (I totally get that!) or even Fred Thompson (What? That guy would be a blast at the annual block party!).

Some 15 percent of Republicans said they'd rather not have one of the candidates living next door, while 14 percent of GOP voters said they'd fire up the grill for Thompson. Mike Huckabee got 13 percent and Giuliani got 12. Now, 1 percent of these Republicans said, what the hell, let's talk to Joe Biden over the fence and I think that's interesting because 4 percent want to borrow a cup of sugar from Hillary Clinton. What do these people have against Biden?

Democrats apparently think politicians make crappy neighbors too; 13 percent of them didn't want anything to do with candidates either (is it all the handshaking? Ugly yard signs? What's wrong with those surveyed?). But! These progressives are totally willing to show the love to Hillary -- a quarter of them wanted her (orrrr, do they want her husband?) next door. Nearly as many, 23 percent, wouldn't mind Barack Obama (orrrr, do they want his wife?) next door. And 3 percent would want Joe Biden (ouch, that has to hurt). I don't know what makes John Edwards so unappealing, but only 8 percent wanted him and his family (he'd totally lead the charge in overturning those elitist, rights-suppressing convenent restrictions in your cookie-cutter McMansion-land.).

What about you? Am I the only one who thinks Kucinich is the obvious best choice? What's wrong with these people?

Are Kids in the U.S. and U.K. the World's Dummies?

Madeline Holler — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:03:00 GMT

Let’s start with the bad news: fourth-graders in the U.S. haven’t improved their reading skills since No Child Left Behind was started. And the number of countries and regions whose fourth-graders are now better than their American counterparts has increased. A lot.

The good news? U.S. scores are still above the international average. And, U.S. fourth-graders scored better than their peers over in the U.K. (They still have the better accents when reading aloud, which, sadly, for them, was not a part of the standards.)

Here’s the rest of the competition: U.S. students posted a lower average score than students in Russia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Hungary, Italy and Sweden, along with the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. (Damn Canadians)

In the last round of these international literacy tests, Russia, Hong Kong and Singapore were behind the United States.

These scores are the source of much consternation for the U.K., who not only falls behind the U.S. (which is likely quite humiliating for them) but is also actually scoring lower than in previous years. Great Britain fell from third to 19th place in the overall scores. Only Morocco and Bulgaria fell harder, faster.

Experts in the U.K. fault computer games, a decline in reading at home, and a decline in the amount of time students are read to at school.

Photo: BBC

Are You Actually Going to Eat All That Candy?

Madeline Holler — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:09:00 GMT

What’s an overprotective, control freaky mother to do around all this craven candy eating anyway? How the hell do we still have Halloween? I thought refined sugars and high fructose corn syrup were the enemy? How do we get our kids through Halloween without noticeable weight-gain and the aftereffects of insulin shock?

I have a friend who lets her kid, after trick-or-treating, eat one piece of candy for every year of life. At five years old, she ate five pieces, and so on. After bed, my friend throws out the rest, and they put Halloween behind them.

Another friend lets her kids gorge themselves silly, feel sick if need be, and just get their candy freak on one day a year. What doesn’t get eaten gets tossed in the trash. They brush their teeth twice as long as usual. By the next day, Halloween is already behind them.

Others I know let kids eat a few pieces everyday. Depending on how much trick-or-treating gets done, this could last forever! I know because this is what I have wound up doing. Oh, and I wind up snacking on the good stuff until it’s gone. This is the worst approach of any, in my opinion. Halloween is never, ever behind you.

Here’s what some experts say:

“Eat what you like, throw out the rest. Having fewer rules us better. It's not good. It's not bad. It's just a piece of candy."

"Schedule for the evening: Collect everything. Bring it home. Parents check to see that it's all safe. Choose one or two pieces to eat. Decide what to do with the rest.”

"If you believe your child responds to sugary food, plan how to handle that. Usually that means: one piece.” (Damn, who wants to fight THAT battle?)

"My concern about Halloween -- it's the beginning. The days are shorter. You may be a little less active. You start eating these foods, and then here comes Thanksgiving, then Christmas. You need to think about what you're eating. Don't get into a pattern of eating sweets and not stop until January." (I know but …)

"I promote the use of alternative treats -- stickers, glow sticks, crayons, bubble-blowers.”

"Your kids are going to get a lot of candy. Have them pick their favorite five and eat one a day for five days. The rest -- donate.” (Donate candy? Foist that crap on other people?)

"Let your kids go trick-or-treating. You don't want to deprive them. You can figure out ways of minimizing the damage for this rare occasion."

"Give away the rest. It's the parents' choice what to do. You can even throw it away. It will do a lot less damage in the garbage than in kids' bodies."

No one recommended getting rid of Halloween. So, responsible, nutritionally minded parents, what do you do with all that candy?

Random Halloween Stuff and a Vote for Your Favorite Candy

Madeline Holler — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:06:00 GMT

According to a VP at Rite-Aid, candy is a staple Halloween treat. Huh. I thought it was those skull-shaped erasers that don’t actually erase anything.

More interesting and important is a candy survey out of Philadelphia. Students at St. Joseph’s University ranked their Halloween treat preferences. Their top choice? (Hint: it wasn’t popcorn balls.)

Reese's Peanut Butter Cups!

Next up is Snickers, Swedish Fish, Twix and Skittles. Is this your ranking, because I’m with them on the Cups. But Swedish Fish? Skittles? I think candy should at least have chocolate if it’s going to break into the top 5. So I’d say Kit-Kats, Twix (original and peanut butter) and those Hershey's Miniatures (especially Mr. Goodbar). Can I not be crazy about Snickers and still be an American? What about you? Please don't say M&M's (snooooze).

Hang on a sec. While I unwrap a Reese’s.

More randomness: the American Assn. of Orthodontics says kids who wear braces should not eat hard candies, chewy candies, caramel, nuts, licorice, taffy, jelly beans, or bubblegum. Stick to the chocolate (that's my advice).

And those with nut and egg allergies should be very careful, especially around the really really cheap stuff.

Finally, October is National Pork Month (but you knew that already). I guess it’s pork chops and bacon for the allergic kids in braces.