Babywalkers - help or hindrance?

[GillW]

There's an article in the current British Medical Journal about babywalkers, and their effect upon development. Naturally the papers picked up on it and sensationalised it saying that "BABYWALKERS hold back tots who are learning to stand
and walk, a new study shows".

Basically they claim to show that for every 24 hours of babywalker use there is an associated delay of 3.3 days in walking alone and 3.7 days for standing.

Actually reading the article, rather than just the tabloid headlines shows that the group using babywalkers rolled over on average 2.86 days later than the non walker group, and walked 2.98 days later. A difference of just 0.12 days ( about 3 hours, and I doubt their measurements were in units of any less than 1 whole day, so that's statistically insignificant) between a milestone which would occur before the use of baby walkers began, and one which would occur after their use. But of course that doesn't make good headlines, and I suspect (cynic that I am!) that it wasn't the result the researchers wanted.

Asking around it seems to me that people with babies who seemed quite advanced (rolled and sat early for example) seem to have been less likely to use walkers, as they were more confident that their child would learn without the help of developmental aids - which would seem to fit in with that 2.86 day difference between the groups at the rolling stage. Without a random sample, rather than a group which self-selected which babies would use walkers, I'm not sure that this research has any real validity.

Leaving aside the issues of safety surrounding walkers, what have been your experiences. Did you use walkers? If so why? And for a bit of anecdotal research how long was it between rolling and walking alone for your babies?

I was given one second hand and it was a total boon for my daughter who wanted to be upright well before she could properly support herself.She was really happy in it, sitting/half standing in an upright position. She walked at about 10 or 11 months and started running soon after!
I probably would not have thought about buying one but in her cse it was grest success - my intention was not to train her to walk, but just to keep her happy in the upright position she loved.

GillW, I never used them for my first two but did for my third. I did not care to use it to help them walk. I mainly kept the brakes on and used it for snacking while I did house cleaning or when I had to shower. My 19 mo still sits in it so I can shower. Wont be using it much longer though. Its a large car type walker which fits his body perfectly just not his long legs. Ive never liked them to aid kids in walking all over the house. But did come in handy for me to get anything done around the house.

Oops - reading the article again, the figures were in weeks, not days - but 0.12 of a week delay in walking alone is still less than a day....

Actually the more I read that article, the worse a piece of research it looks. Saying that more babywalker use meant later walking is no more valid than saying that walking later meant that babywalkers were in use for longer, thus accumulating more hours in them. There's no proof there of which is cause and which effect. And there's no comment on the fact that every milestone, from raising the head onwards was later on average in the baywalker users group.

It looks what it obviously is from the small print - a student project, and not a particularly thorough one when it comes to drawing conclusions either. But I suppose "I did a study but it didn't prove anything" doesn't get good marks - or research papers published!

I do wish though that the media would look at the detail and think things through before they come up with sensationalist headlines.

have to agree with your last post GillW.
Also, what if using a babywalker meant my dd walked a week later? WHO CARES! It gave me several months of peace

My DS was always quite sick in his first year of life (doctor said he'll grow out of it, which he did) and the baby walker was a godsend in keeping him upright long enough for the food to go down properly.

Baby walkers have been around longer than almost any other bit of equipment - you can see them in medieval paintings of the childhood of Christ, almost identical to the current designs! (A cradle is probably the oldest?)

I found them really helpful for babies who wanted to see what was going on, interact with siblings etc - not as a device to 'learn to walk'. Who wants babies to walk early anyway?

Putting my statistician's hat on, it looks like a pretty good piece of research to me. Sample sizes are a bit small, and there are likely to be confounding factors they perhaps should have considered. I don't agree with the conclusions, though -- that walkers are bad because walking a little later is such a bad thing. To really test this you'd take many sets of identical twins, where one got to use the walker and the other didn't.

Putting my mother's hat on.... someone gave us a walker a month ago. The 2.6yo thinks it's his toy, zooms around the conservatory in it, and objects to his 8.75 month old sister going in it. Her legs are too short to reach the floor in the walker, and she's standing 1-4 seconds by herself, anyway. I think she'll walk before she is tall enough to use the walker much.

DS rolled over at 4.75 months, and walked at 9 months 4 days. DD rolled over a week or so earlier then DS, but I don't think she'll walk until ~10.5 months old. She was such a champ roller she learnt to crawl 6 wks later.

I think that's the interesting (?obvious) finding of the study -- babies in walkers don't get as much tummy time. The biggest delay was for crawling, not walking.

Zebra - how can it be a good piece of research when there is a very highly significant difference between the milestones of the two groups at the start of the study (i.e. roll over) which has hardly varied by the end of it (i.e. walking alone). To be valid any statistical study involving a control group, has to have that control group matched to the study group at the start of the study - surely not the case here?

The responses on the BMJ site make a quite interesting reading. I think it's the first time I've ever seen a bunch of health professionals jump to the defence of baby walker use.

I feel that one of the worries with using baby walkers too much is that babies lose out on crawling time. AN osteopath told me that crawling is very important for spinal development, and not to rush your child into walking - he said that it's very important for them to spend as much time crawling as possible. In fact, he even prescibes periods of crawling around the floor for adults with back problems!!

It's funny. I got into an argument on Newsnet once where others were insisting that early crawlers were late walkers, which didn't fit my experience at all. So I guess you are asserting that early rollers are early walkers? I don't think it's that simple. At least, it doesn't fit that tidily with anecdotal experience. Watching my own two, the better roller will definitely be a "much" later walker. Seems like because she got around to crawling later.

And the difference for crawling is most interesting, and did vary more between the groups than the rolling milestone.

Then again, people on mumsnet keeps telling me I'm full of rubbish, so maybe I am.

So Tetley what about my DS who went straight to walking. He did crawl but only briefly/intermittently during his early walking period when he fell over and couldn't get up without pulling himself up? Will he potentially have a weaker spine?

Just a bit confused - the survey found that babies in walkers rolled later than those not in a walker - but would you put a baby that immobile in a walker? Can't imagine such a young baby in a walker. I used a walker for my dd, but she was well past the rolling stage when it was introduced. For me it was a place to put her safely whilst I bunged a bit of washing in the machine etc - she was happy cos she was upright and could see what I was up to. Wasn't used as a learning aide at all.
She's now thirteen months - gave up the walker a month ago as she began to find it too restrictive - is just taking her first few steps (when she can be bothered!)
Also, say the twenty four hr thing - I doubt my dd had much more than that total use in her walker. She'd probably spend about twenty mins a day in it, so if it overall delayed walking by a week, who cares?!!

Leese, that's exactly the whole point I was trying to make - chronologically, rolling will occur before the use of a walker starts. So the age at rolling can't possibly have been influenced by walker use. What they really found was simply that babies who rolled later were more likely to be given walkers to use.

Zebra - I think they're talking about rolling over, rather than rolling around as an alternative to crawling. I'm also not sure how this study would have handled babies who didn't crawl, or only crawled after walking - that would surely influence/confuse the average age of crawling?

Not all babies were rolling yet when they started using the walker. (I know a few babies who weren't rolling before 10 months old). If walkers reduce tummy time, they could partly explain why the walker babies rolled later.

I agree the study is far from definitive.

And that a week or two delay in walking is probably not important.

Plus, less time spent on the floor and more in a walker would really help limit the quantity of disgusting things DD manages to find on the floor and get into her gob. :-) Sounds like a pretty good risk tradeoff to me!

We were given a second hand baby walker, we've only used it a couple of times (DD is 7 1/2 months). She only seems to be able to go backwards in it so far though! I only had her in it for a short while, as a change from sat on a mat/in her high chair or while I get on with something (as others have said).

I took the tabloid headlines with a bucket of salt, but the other point I heard somewhere was about ankle stress. It was pointed out that if a walking baby's ankles get tired, she will sit down whereas she can't in a walker and it might ache her ankles. I wasn't too worried by this as I can't imagine I'll use it when she's walking anyway.

There has been concern for years about babywalkers as far as physiotherapists are concerned because it can cause babies' feet to turn in because of the way they make the walker move. Then they can encounter problems when they do actually start to walk.

I personally had a walker for my first ds but rapidly got rid of it because he had access to places he normally wouldn't have and I preferred him immobile!

I didn't have grumpy babies so I am not criticisind anyone who gets peace with them

I know the safety aspect was not to be considered but it is a major problem. I know a few intelligent mothers personally whose children have fallen out the back door and down stairs in the walker because someone else had left a gate or door open. One friend's child actually fell out the loft that had been converted to a play area - not seriously hurt but fairly bruised.

I was constantly offered a baby walker by my in laws (they were going to buy one) for ds but refused, very nicely, every time. They couldnt understand why I wouldnt want to put ds in it to give me some spare arm time and for him to be able to get around. I too had heard reports of leg problems, walking problems etc and was quite happy anyway for ds to find his own way around.

My boss is a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and he told me the other day he used baby walkers for both of his children.

I know many anaesthetists who smoke - doctors do not necessarily know best

My neighbour uses a baby walker almost constantly. Her dd is 14 mths and neither crawls nor walks. She is also quite overweight. I think that with babywalkers along with most baby 'aids' using them in moderation is the key.

We used a baby walker for first ds as he had a problem with his kidney and so didn't like to roll around at all, he couldn't lay on his tummy until he was about 10 months.

Because of this he was late walking and crawling and so the baby walker gave him mobility which was great for him and us.

As soon as he started to crawl he lost all interest in it and never looked back. For him it was great but in moderation, defiantely the keyword!

ames - what does your neighbours weight have to do with the use of the babywalker?

Leese - I meant that the baby is overweight not my neighbour.

sorry ames - doh!!

lol leese. I'd of thought that it I was reading it. Just goes to show how easily we can misinterpret each other.