Randomized trial finds higher air exposure frequency improves recovery and maternal self-efficacy in infants.
Diaper dermatitis is a common condition affecting infants aged 0–3 months, often leading to physical discomfort and psychological distress for parents. Traditional management focuses on skin protection, yet the impact of open to air on recovery is under-researched. This study aims to evaluate the effects of different open to air frequencies on diaper dermatitis recovery and maternal self-efficacy. A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 130 infants diagnosed with mild diaper dermatitis. Participants were assigned to two groups: Group A received 5 min of diaper-free air exposure 6 times a day, while Group B received the same duration 12 times a day. Data were collected using the Uncomplicated Diaper Dermatitis Severity Rating Scale (UDDSRSI) and the Perceived Maternal Self-Efficacy Scale (PMSS) at baseline and upon resolution of dermatitis. The recovery duration was significantly shorter in Group B (1.98 ± 1.22 days) compared to Group A (3.23 ± 1.01 days; p = 0.002). Maternal self-efficacy scores increased significantly in both groups, with Group B showing a greater improvement (Group A: 61.51 ± 8.61 to 66.81 ± 8.74; Group B: 65.00 ± 6.92 to 75.21 ± 3.93; p < 0.001). Regression analysis indicated that the intervention in Group B significantly enhanced maternal self-efficacy (β = 8.40, t = 8.801, p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that increased open to air frequency effectively shortens diaper dermatitis recovery time and enhances maternal self-efficacy. These findings suggest that simple, cost-effective interventions can significantly benefit both infant dermatological health and maternal psychological well-being, offering valuable insights for pediatric care practices. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT07268352, registered on November 25, 2025. This trial is retrospectively registered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bilgiç et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: