Talk:Martha G. Welch

Request Edits October 2020

Hello, I’d like to request additional content be added to this article about the more recent scientific research career of Martha Welch, the subject of this article, a Professor of Psychiatry in Pediatrics and in Pathology & Cell Biology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. All of the suggested research is from peer-reviewed scientific journals. Aside from the peer-reviewed studies, each with many citations in other peer-reviewed journals, there is a two-part, in-depth PBS News story about her research and clinical trials.[1] and [2]

I have looked at the following Good Articles as reference: Nessa Carey, Lalji Singh and Shyam Swarup Agarwal.

I have a conflict of interest as an employee of Nusura, which represents the Nurture Science Program at Columbia University Medical Center. Welch is the Director of the program. I’d request that an independent editor(s) please review these proposals.

1. As a precursor, I’d request that Wikipedia please remove the template box atop the article. That template is reserved for articles that “may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories.” As you can see, the second paragraph of the “Career” section, about a 31-year old book, contains ample refutations of not only her book, but the work of people who may have been influenced by misreadings of the book. FYI, the description of the book’s theory is highly inaccurate and much of the published criticism doesn’t even mention her, but instead, describes people with theories separate from Welch’s. There’s already substantially more weight given to the criticism of the theory than the distorted description of the theory itself -- so there’s no need for a template that says more weight needs to be given to opposing the view.

All the new medical research that follows, from her peer-reviewed work as a professor at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, is unrelated to this book’s theories about autism.

2. Under the section "Career", please add a new section called “Research” and the following section and sub-sections:

A. First proposed sub-section

Gut-Brain Signaling

In 2009, Welch and her colleagues studied the effects of hormones on gut health and the nervous system, proving the presence of oxytocin receptors (OTR) in gut epithelium and neurons of the enteric nervous system. This discovery led to the theory that oxytocin may play a role in neurophysiological development, including visceral sensory perception and neuromodulation. Her further research on mice demonstrated the importance of oxytocin on gut function, including hormonal intestinal regulation, motility and protection against inflammation. Welch and her colleagues also found that the combined administration of secretin and oxytocin inhibits chronic colitis, and that colitis-related secretin activation occurs in the rat forebrain, even absent communication from the vagus nerve.

Explanation: Welch’s peer-reviewed, published research on hormones of nurture is highly-cited in peer-reviewed articles by other researchers. To date, her research on the effects of hormones on gut health has been cited by other medical journals 74 times according to Scopus. The study about oxytocin regulation in the gastrointestinal system in mice has been cited 53 times according to Scopus; her research on secretin and oxytocin related to colitis has been cited 23 times in other medical journals [Scopus]. As per WP, acceptable sources of citation metrics are given in WP:PROF, specifically Metrics:"The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus." In the explanations supporting the proposals below, we include Scopus. Scopus research was conducted by entering Welch’s name into the search, then scanning the results for the specific articles, within which the citation numbers were listed.

B. Second proposed sub-section

Family Nurture Care and Intervention

In 2014, Welch’s clinical research on family nurture intervention (FNI) - a method she created to help counteract the effects of separation between mothers and preterm infants - found that it improved emotional connection, resulted in calmer touch patterns, and that infants showed less crying. FNI - which incorporates calming human interactions between mothers and infants such as holding their infants, comfort touch, scent cloth exchange, eye contact and skin-to-skin care - also improved frontal brain development in preterm infants and promoted normalization and maturation of the heart rate and respiratory sinus arrhythmia. Studies testing long term outcomes of family nurture intervention versus standard care found the practice yielded positive effects in language, thinking, emotional regulation and social-relatedness.

Explanation: Welch’s research on family nurture intervention is peer-reviewed research that has been cited a combined 132 times in other medical journals, as of September 7, 2020 according to Scopus. The intervention and its results were also covered by a two-part extended feature on “PBS News Hour.” Take a look! It’s fascinating.[3] and [4]

C. Third proposed sub-section:

Calming Cycle Theory

In 2016, Welch’s calming cycle theory proposed that mothers and infants co-regulate each other autonomically through regular physical and social contact. The theory applies the principles of Pavlovian conditioning to the perinatal period to explain how the shared experiences between mothers and infants contribute to the child’s survival, adaptation and motivation.

Explanation: Welch’s proposed calming cycle theory is peer-reviewed research that to date has been cited 18 times in other medical journal articles according to Scopus.

Thanks very much for your consideration. KnollLane55901 (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

The suggested wording makes claims that are verified only by the subject's work. To confirm these claims, please provide references from reliable, third party sources. Additionally, page numbers from these journal articles have not been provided. Regards,  Spintendo  14:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Request Edits December 2020

I have several Request Edits below, which are revised as per the above comment in the previous Request Edit made October 26 2020. Please note that in WP: Notability (academics), the sub-section “Specific criteria notes” says that this primary criteria for notability can be met by citation in “several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.” Since citation in a peer-reviewed journal counts toward establishing notability, it follows that peer-reviewed journal citations themselves are acceptable secondary sources for articles about academics,as are frequency of citation in SCOPUS -- the specific scientific database the WIkipedia policy identifies should be used. WP: Notability (academics).

Good Articles by notable scientists such as Nessa Carey, Lalji Singh and Frederic M. Richards include original peer-reviewed research supported by either by citations to just other peer-reviewed journals. Or to the peer-reviewed article itself.

The first research sub-section request also includes a prominent mainstream editorial source, PBS NewsHour.

Since a degree of bio-medical expertise seems to be required to evaluate the quality of citations, I am also posting a notification of this request to WikiProjects for Biology and Medicine.

1. Please remove the template box atop the article. That template is reserved for articles that “may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories.” As you can see, the second paragraph of the “Career” section, about a 31-year old book, contains ample refutations of not only her book, but the work of people who may have been influenced by misreadings of the book. FYI, the description of the book’s theory is highly inaccurate and much of the published criticism doesn’t even mention her, but instead, describes people with theories separate from Welch’s. There’s already substantially more weight given to the criticism of the theory than the distorted description of the theory itself -- so there’s no need for a template that says more weight needs to be given to opposing the view.

All the new medical research that follows, from her peer-reviewed work as a professor at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, is unrelated to this book’s theories about autism.

2. Please add a new section called “Research” under “Career.”

3. Please insert a new sub-section called “Family Nurture Care and Intervention” as the first sub-section, with the following language:

Welch’s clinical research on family nurture intervention (FNI) - a method she created to help counteract the effects of separation between mothers and preterm infants - found that it improved emotional connection, resulted in calmer touch patterns, and that infants showed less crying.

FNI incorporates calming human interactions between mothers and infants such as holding, comfort touch, scent cloth exchange, eye contact and skin-to-skin care.

Research found the method improved frontal brain development in preterm infants, yielding positive effects in language, thinking, and emotional regulation.

Explanation: Welch’s research on family nurture intervention is peer-reviewed research that has been cited a combined 132 times in other medical journals, as of September 7, 2020 according to Scopus. The intervention and its results were also covered by a two-part extended feature on “PBS News Hour.” Take a look! It’s fascinating.[5] and [6]

4. Please insert a new sub-section called “Gut-Brain Signaling” as the second sub-section, with the following language:

In 2009, Welch and her colleagues studied the effects of hormones on gut health and the nervous system, proving the presence of oxytocin receptors (OTR) in gut epithelium and neurons of the enteric nervous system. This discovery led to the theory that oxytocin may play a role in neurophysiological development, including visceral sensory perception and neuromodulation. Her further research on mice demonstrated the importance of oxytocin on gut function, including hormonal intestinal regulation, motility and protection against inflammation. Welch and her colleagues also found that the combined administration of secretin and oxytocin inhibits chronic colitis, and that colitis-related secretin activation occurs in the rat forebrain, even absent communication from the vagus nerve.

Explanation: Welch’s peer-reviewed, published research on hormones of nurture is highly-cited in peer-reviewed articles by other researchers. To date, her research on the effects of hormones on gut health has been cited by other medical journals 74 times according to Scopus. The study about oxytocin regulation in the gastrointestinal system in mice has been cited 53 times according to Scopus; her research on secretin and oxytocin related to colitis has been cited 23 times in other medical journals [Scopus]. As per WP, acceptable sources of citation metrics are given in WP:PROF, specifically Metrics:"The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus." In the explanations supporting the proposals below, we include Scopus. Scopus research was conducted by entering Welch’s name into the search, then scanning the results for the specific articles, within which the citation numbers were listed.

5. Please insert a new sub-section called “Calming Cycle Theory” as the third sub-section, with the following language:

In 2016, Welch’s calming cycle theory proposed that mothers and infants co-regulate each other autonomically through regular physical and social contact. The theory applies the principles of Pavlovian conditioning to the perinatal period to explain how the shared experiences between mothers and infants contribute to the child’s survival, adaptation and motivation.

Explanation: Welch’s proposed calming cycle theory is peer-reviewed research that to date has been cited 18 times in other medical journal articles according to Scopus.

Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me with any questions. KnollLane55901 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

KnollLane55901, unfortunately your understanding about secondary sources is not right. The reasoning you provided to claim peer reviewed journals as secondary sources is not proper too. Please read here what are primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources. The references you provided, though are peer reviewed academic journals, they are primary sources. Spintendo tried to indicate this issue earlier. To include any commentary on the content of these papers, you should produce what reputed, reliable secondary sources are saying about the research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and being so it heavily relies on secondary sources when including contents in articles. Also, please see what is original research and why it is not allowed to be included in an article. I would suggest to consult with other editors first before placing any future edit request on the same subject which is likely to be not attended if the concern expressed repeatedly is not addressed. Chirota (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposal to Revise Contentious Statements in Career section

A substantial section of the last paragraph of the Career section for Martha G. Welch regarding her book Holding Time is highly inaccurate, intentionally inflammatory and much of it based on invented sourcing or very unreliable sources. I have a conflict of interest as an employee of ClarBright, LLC which represents Martha G. Welch. I request that independent editors evaluate this proposal to fix the problems. My suggestion and explanation is below, with a discussion section below that. I apologize for the length of the explanation but the amount of inaccurate, misleading and unsourced material is extensive.KnollLane55901 (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

1. Below the Career section, create a new section called “Controversy” and move the second paragraph of “Career” to this new section. This paragraph needs to be replaced because it violates multiple Wikipedia policies, explained below.

PLEASE DELETE:

“Welch published the controversial book "Holding Time" in the 1980s. This method involved coercive physical restraint of the child by the mother for an hour each day. Younger children were restrained by the mother's arms while they faced the mother and straddled her lap; older children lay supine while the mother lay prone on top of them. Children resisted and struggled, but eventually became quiet. Welch's book supports claims made by the highly discredited psychoanalyst, Bruno Bettelheim about the etiology and treatment of autism spectrum disorder. Holding Time posits that autism is a conscious decision made by the afflicted child instigated by a lack of maternal bonding- commonly referred to as a "refrigerator mother". This approach was praised by the Nobel prizewinning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. Dr. Tinbergen described the need for additional research and evidence to support Dr. Welch's research. Welch subsequently renamed this technique Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace and suggested it for oppositional behavior and attachment disorders. Her report of a nonrandomized, pre- and post-treatment study concluded that the method was effective. The design of that study has been criticized and this type of therapy has been shown to be related to that of the German-Czech therapist Jirina Prekopova, whose methods have been described as potentially harmful. Most professionals and behavioral specialists strongly discourage using holding therapy as a behavioral intervention. Holding therapy, commonly called attachment therapy, can cause severe bodily injury as well as, in some cases, death. An 10 year old girl, Candace Newmaker, was suffocated to death during a 70 minute holding therapy session in Evergreen, Colorado. During this session, four adults (weighing a combined total of 673 pounds) used their hands and feet to push on Candace's head, chest and 70-pound body to resist her attempts to free herself, while she complained, pleaded, and even screamed for help and air, unable to escape from the sheet. The death of Candace Newmaker propagated legislation in Colorado called "Candace's Law".”

REPLACE WITH:

Welch published the book "Holding Time” in 1988. The book promoted the use of prolonged parent-child embrace, a physical technique to increase communication and emotional connection between parent and child. Welch claimed the technique could lower the risk of autism in children, for which she was later criticized. According to PBS, “some of Welch’s ideas were then co-opted by other practitioners to promote increasingly physical and coercive techniques”, which Welch she had “ nothing to do with”, does not condone and was “devastated to be associated with” in the press.

• Explanation: Rewrites paragraph for neutrality and WP: BALANCE. Removes statements that are not supported by reliable sources or do not mention the book or Welch. Here is a sentence-by-sentence breakdown of the problems with the current paragraph in the article and how they can be fixed in the proposal.

A. “Welch published the controversial book "Holding Time" in the 1980s.

• Removing the “controversial” book reference -- citation is the book itself, which does not describe itself as controversial. A later controversy involved adaptations of Welch’s techniques by others. Corrects the publication date, which is 1988 (not 1989).

B. “This method involved coercive physical restraint of the child by the mother for an hour each day. Younger children were restrained by the mother's arms while they faced the mother and straddled her lap; older children lay supine while the mother lay prone on top of them. Children resisted and struggled, but eventually became quiet. Welch's book supports claims made by the highly discredited psychoanalyst, Bruno Bettelheim about the etiology and treatment of autism spectrum disorder.”

• The first source is a personal blog, not a reliable source. The second and third sources do not mention Welch or the book. Replaced this description of the technique as described and supported by reliable sources.

C.”Holding Time posits that autism is a conscious decision made by the afflicted child instigated by a lack of maternal bonding- commonly referred to as a "refrigerator mother".”

Neither of these two sources mention “Holding Time” or Welch. The first source can be downloaded at [7] The second source is online at the URL. Furthermore is false that the book “Holding Time” posits that autism is a conscious decision.

D.”This approach was praised by the Nobel prizewinning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. Dr. Tinbergen described the need for additional research and evidence to support Dr. Welch's research.”

• Removed these statements, as the Nikolaas Tinbergen book cited was published in 1986, before “Holding Time” was published in , and does not mention Welch’s book. There is a also missing citation for the statement about Tinbergen’s alleged statement about Welch’s research --

• E “Welch subsequently renamed this technique Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace and suggested it for oppositional behavior and attachment disorders. Her report of a nonrandomized, pre- and post-treatment study concluded that the method was effective.”

• This is rephrased in a more concise manner, that is easier to follow, in the proposed replacement text.

F“The design of that study has been criticizedthis type of therapy has been shown to be related to that of the German-Czech therapist Jirina Prekopova, whose methods have been described as potentially harmful.”

• The first sentence is subsumed in the language of the proposal with the criticism of Welch. The sentence about the German-Czech therapist is WP: Coatracking A hypothesis that a totally different method that came years after Welch’s method might have been influenced by a misreading of her work is distant from her biography. Stating in this article that this third-person’s methods have been described as harmful is being used to cast aspersions on Welch in an unsubstantiated and off-topic manner.

• G “Most professionals and behavioral specialists strongly discourage using holding therapy as a behavioral intervention. Holding therapy, commonly called attachment therapy, can cause severe bodily injury as well as, in some cases, death.

• Replacing these sentences with statements that keep the article focused on Welch’s career, are neutral in tone, address the dispute and have reliable supporting sources. The current sources listed do not mention Welch and steer the article far away from her career. WP: COATRACKING.

H “An 10 year old girl, Candace Newmaker, was suffocated to death during a 70 minute holding therapy session in Evergreen, Colorado. During this session, four adults (weighing a combined total of 673 pounds) used their hands and feet to push on Candace's head, chest and 70-pound body to resist her attempts to free herself, while she complained, pleaded, and even screamed for help and air, unable to escape from the sheet. The death of Candace Newmaker propagated legislation in Colorado called "Candace's Law".”

• Removing these sentences, as none of the sources listed for this incident mention Welch and it is not related to her career. Extreme coatracking. Controversy addressing the co-opting of Welch’s techniques by other practitioners to harm children is addressed with statements that are supported by reliable sourcing.

2. Please remove the “fringe theories|date=June 2017” notation at the top of the article.

• Explanation: Both the current and proposed paragraphs about “Holding Time” present the opposing point of view, as supported by reliable sources that mention Welch or the book. The template is therefore unmerited no matter the outcome of the first request -- the template is used as an alert to other editors to add balance to fringe claims. Aside from the fact that it is another group of practitioners, not Welch, who practice the fringe method, there’s plenty of space and sourcing given to balance the description of Welch’s work.

Thank you for your consideration .KnollLane55901 (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I have made this edit although I left out the last sentence as the transcript of the PBS source didn't include that phrasing. The original prose was a huge jumble of OR/SYNTH and used some blogs/SPS as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thank you for your review. I think you may have missed request #2 because it was below a lot of other text about the sourcing. Anyway, the request is:

“Please remove the “fringe theories|date=June 2017” notation at the top of the article.”

I think after your review, the reasoning is self-evident. Thank you. KnollLane55901 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I just forgot to remove that during my edit. All set now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Not so fast there partners. This is a request to clean up Welch's Wikipedia page from someone paid by the company to clean up Welch's reputation. Welch has been a leading proponent of holding therapy which is pseudoscience and abusive. See videos here http://www.childrenintherapy.org/videos.html you can see Welch (use Find) using attachment therapy and compression therapy. This is abusive and because it falls under alt-med I think we need to add the alt med sidebar. Sgerbic (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there any reliable secondary sources for that, rather than us watching a WP:PRIMARY video and performing WP:OR to add a negative side bar to a BLP? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Edits by Yarnbender

It seems like any information about the subject's involvement in attachment therapy has been removed from this article. I've made a start on undoing this by separating the Holding Time part out into it's own section that addresses the controversy related to it and expanding it somewhat. This is all I could do on it tonight, but I intend to add to the introduction section and check on the parts discussing her work on autism to see if these would also be better addressed in the new section. TheYarnBender (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

February 2023 Request Edit Proposal

Hi, I’d like to revisit some topics that were previously discussed at Talk:Martha G. Welch#Request Edits October 2020. My proposed language was not adopted at the time because an editor said that too many of the citations were WP:PRIMARY and suggested that some of the content might violate WP:NOR as well. I have a conflict of interest as an employee of ClarBright a communications firm which represents Welch–

A lot has changed since then, including the publication of two independent peer-reviewed systematic review papers which discuss Welch’s work on “Family Nurture Intervention” and “Oxytocin in Fetal Development.” According to WP:MEDASSESS, Wikipedia “editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews” in peer-reviewed journals. In general, according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP “a paper reviewing existing research” is “better than” primary research articles. Therefore I believe the proposals below should now be acceptable.

I.

Suggested language for Subsection 1, new Research section: Oxytocin in Perinatal Development

Research

Oxytocin in Perinatal Development

Welch was the lead author of a peer-reviewed article published in the January 2009 issue of The Journal of Comparative Neurology, which found that oxytocin (OT) and oxytocin receptors (OTR) likely play important roles in the development and functioning of the enteric nervous system. The 2009 study also found that OTR were present in fetal gut cells and tissue during the perinatal period of fetal development; and multiple later studies have shown that the anti-inflammatory effects of OT appear to play an important protective roles for both the brain and the gastrointestinal system during birth.

Explanation: The secondary source is an independent peer-reviewed 2019 paper by Kingsbury and Bilbo that reviews the state of knowledge on oxytocin’s role in protecting fetuses/infants before and during birth, which cites other studies by independent scholars that support the findings of Welch et al. As noted above, according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP “a paper reviewing existing research” is “better than” primary research articles so this paper is an especially useful source. The paper cites 2009 and 2014 papers co-authored by Welch numerous times, and also shows that the findings of Welch and her co-authors have since been supported by other studies undertaken by independent researchers. I only use Welch’s own paper to establish the basic, uncontroversial fact of exactly when and in which journal her findings were originally put forward.

The Welch et al. 2009 paper has also been cited 95 times overall and 93 times in the Web of Science index, indicating that the study and its findings have been important within this field of neurobiological research. The Web of Science index is one of the two Wikipedia-acceptable sources for academic citations and impact factors to establish notability. It only uses peer-reviewed journals. (the other being Scopus) WP:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics.

II.

Suggested language for Subsection 2, new Research section: Family Nurture Intervention

Family Nurture Intervention

Welch was the lead author of a peer-reviewed article published in the April 2014 issue of Clinical Neurophysiology. The results of this 2014 study indicated that the presence of physical contact and care in the NICU has positive neurobiological effects on preterm infants. Welch’s FNI approach incorporates “calming” human interactions between mothers and infants such as holding their infants, comfort touch, scent cloth exchange, eye contact, emotional expression, and skin-to-skin care. Although these sorts of interactions with infants in an NICU setting appear to have positive effects on infant development, the exact benefits of such contact are difficult to predict because of genetic, environmental, and other factors that vary from case to case. Multiple studies testing long term outcomes of family nurture intervention versus standard care have also found that this treatment appears to provide positive effects on the development of other neurocognitive functions such as language acquisition or emotional regulation.

Explanation: There is now a review paper by Oberg et al (published in the peer-reviewed journal Early Human Development in November 2022) which includes a clear discussion of Welch’s work on FNI and its importance in that field of research and cites work by other independent scholars that supports the findings of Welch et al. This Oberg et al., 2022 paper was written by scholars with no direct ties to Welch or her co-authors, so as discussed above it is a reliable WP:SECONDARY source. Review papers like this are especially valuable as sources, as WP:MEDASSESS notes. Wikipedia “editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews” in peer-reviewed journals.

Additional supplemental support is provided by 2022 pieces in Medscape and Psychology Today that provide substantial summaries of Welch’s work on Family Nurture Intervention and a PBS Newshour segment from 2017. In this version, I only use WP:PRIMARY to establish the basic, uncontroversial fact of exactly when and in which journal this finding was originally put forward.

In addition, the Welch et al. 2014 paper has been cited 61 times overall and 59 times in the Web of Science index, which further shows that the study and its findings have been significant within the field of developmental research.

III.

An update is needed to the second sentence in the article lead to reflect her updated position title (she’s now a full Professor of Psychiatry, not an Associate Professor). Here’s a suggested revision to that sentence, which includes a citation from the MedScape article in Item II above, as it also lists her correct updated title:

Welch currently serves as a Professor of Psychiatry in Pediatrics and in Pathology & Cell Biology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center.

Thanks for considering these proposals. KnollLane55901 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Problems with Controversies section

Hi, I’d like to call attention to serious problems with the Martha G. Welch#Attachment therapy controversy section. It includes highly inaccurate and intentionally inflammatory statements, as well as flawed and improper original analysis tying Welch to the injury and death of children. I’m an employee of ClarBright, a communications firm which represents Dr. Welch, so I have a conflict of interest. I will only report problems and propose solutions rather than edit the article.

For reference, here is the current version of this section (as of August 14, 2023):

Attachment therapy controversy

Welch was a proponent of a form of the controversial practice of attachment therapy, and originated a variety of it sometimes termed Festhaltetherapie, Holding Time, or Prolonged Parent–Child Embrace. The practice has been proposed as a means of treating autism or preventing problems in the parent/child relationship. It includes forcing a child to face their mother while seated on her lap, arms restrained by crossing them in front of the child. For larger children, the mother instead lies on top of the child while supporting herself partially with her elbows. The mother and child are then encouraged to express their emotions to one another while in this position.

While the variety of attachment therapy promoted by Welch has not been associated with the child injuries and deaths that have been associated with similar forms of attachment therapy, it has been subject to controversy. One researcher has pointed out that several aspects of the practice would be classified as adverse childhood experiences if done outside a clinical context. These aspects include causing children physical pain and fear of pain, restraint, and causing children to feel as if they have no one to protect them. They have also noted that the genetic basis for autism makes this form of attachment therapy, which aims to cure autism by repairing the mother/child bond, implausible as a treatment for autism. Other critics have noted that attachment therapy practices, including "physical coercion, psychologically or physically enforced holding, physical restraint, physical domination, provoked catharsis, [and] ventilation of rage" are not recommended and should not be used because they lack proven benefit and risk harming the child.

• Much of the criticism is not about Welch. It conflates Welch’s book Holding Time with the work and practices of others, some of which is extreme and dangerous. This is WP:COATRACKING. This is a bio and should be firmly focused on Welch’s work, not on dangerous spinoff therapies advocated by others.
• There is WP:OR by this editor to connect Welch to extreme practices that have caused death and injury to children, which this editor acknowledges with OR commentary are not part of Welch’s therapy (“While the variety of attachment therapy promoted by Welch has not been associated with the child injuries and deaths…). Welch, in fact, has [condemned| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/science-nurturing-impact-premature-babies] these extreme practices.
• These paragraphs are the sole explanation in this article of Welch’s work on holding therapy - and are an inaccurate characterization of Welch’s work. She does not advocate physically “forcing” or “restraining” children as part of this therapy[8]
• These paragraphs are based almost entirely on a single polemical journal article that has received very little independent scholarly attention or support (16 citations) and was published in a relatively obscure journal (as determined by its impact factor.) While there is certainly grounds for Mercer’s viewpoint to receive mention, the amount of weight being given to this obscure source is WP:UNDUE.
• Mercer’s criticisms of Welch and her work should also be attributed to her by name because it is one author’s critique rather than a medical study or a meta-analysis of the literature. Several of Mercers’ opinions are stated as facts where they are not.
• Much of the language violates neutral point of view and is inconsistent with the “tone” policy set down in WP:BLPSTYLE.
• Welch’s condemnation of the extreme methods that this section implies she advocates is not included. See: [9].
• Several sources do not verify claims. For example, the citations to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Welch et al 2006 paper do not say that a child is forced or restrained during the therapy advocated by Welch. The sources describe a parent embracing a child in a seated position.

I give a sentence by sentence breakdown in more detail below, following my proposed replacement version:

To open up the discussion, here’s a new version I wrote that addresses the issues I noted above:

Holding Time and Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace (PPCE)

Welch wrote a 1989 book called Holding Time. . Welch’s recommended treatment method in Holding Time involved daily sessions of emotional bonding that were to take place with a child seated on their mother’s lap with the child’s legs wrapped around her waist and their arms tucked under her armpits, and the mother holding the child in this position for up to an hour. Welch claimed that this technique increased communication and emotional connection between parent and child. In 2006, Welch and colleagues introduced a revised version of Holding Time therapy that was called “Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace” (PPCE) therapy.

Welch’s therapy has attracted criticism. In 2006, Chaffin et al noted that critics of Welch’s Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace or Holding Time therapies consider the prolonged contact between child and parent to be “coercive or humiliating,” while proponents of the practice argue that it is “gentle or nurturing” instead. Psychologist Jean Mercer wrote a paper that was critical of Welch’s Holding Time and Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace therapies as well as other forms of attachment therapies, but she also noted in that paper that “No reports of physical or psychological injury are known to have been associated with Welch’s ‘holding time’ or PPCE”. Mercer also argued that Welch should be considered the originator of several forms of attachment therapies that involved holding. According to PBS NewsHour in May 2017, “some of Welch’s ideas were… co-opted by other practitioners to promote increasingly physical and coercive techniques”, which Welch said she had “nothing to do with”, does not condone and was “devastated to be associated with”.

I’ve focused the section so it describes Welch’s work, then accurately describes the academic criticism of it. However, I have removed statements from the existing version that do not specifically involve a criticism of Welch. Again, Welch’s work should not be conflated with the body of attachment therapy, most of which is contrary to Welch’s therapeutic recommendations and which she has condemned.

For those who want an in-depth look at the problems with the current section, below I have highlighted the issues in individual sentences:

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1: This sentence improperly orients the section around criticism of a controversial therapeutic movement called attachment therapy rather than Welch’s specific work, which has been considerably more mainstream. This sentence also contains WP:TMI about various names given to forms of attachment therapies (including those developed by scholars other than Welch).

Paragraph 1, Sentence 2: This sentence is WP:COATRACKING since it is about attachment therapies more broadly, not about Welch or her specific work in this field.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 3: This sentence uses non-neutral language (e.g., “forcing a child”) to present a critic’s POV in the voice of Wikipedia. It is also unsourced and inaccurate. For an accurate description of Welch’s therapeutic recommendations, please see [2006 PAPER].

Paragraph 1, Sentence 4: This sentence cites a Welch et al 2006 paper which implies that Welch advocates a therapy practice involving mothers lying on top of larger children while supporting themselves with their elbows. However, the 2006 Welch et al paper does not propose or even mention this technique.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 1: This sentence is original analysis WP:FORUM, WP:COATRACKING and fails WP:Verify. It blackens Welch’s name by obliquely referencing incidents that injured or killed children that have nothing to do with Welch or her work.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 2: This sentence inappropriately presents Jean Mercer’s argument as fact in the voice of Wikipedia with the phrase “has pointed out”, which implies that Mercer’s view is not just an opinion. As was already discussed above, Mercer’s POV should be carefully attributed to her and presented as an argument instead of being dressed up as established and well-accepted medical “fact”.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 4: Here again, this statement should be attributed directly to Mercer, but is being presented more neutrally with a WP:WEASEL use of “They”.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 5: This report does offer criticisms of attachment therapies, but it only discusses Welch in the context of her book Holding Time. At no point in their report do the authors explicitly criticize Welch or her specific work in this field.

Thanks for considering this request. KnollLane55901 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

References

I suggest you bring this to WP:BLPN. I've done some work on this in the past, but I don't have the time to dedicate to it now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that advice, and for taking the time to read this and reply in the first place! I’m going to post it there now. KnollLane55901 (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2024 Request Edit Proposal

Hi. I’d like to propose some updates to this page based on independent, systematic reviews of Dr. Welch’s research. I have a conflict of interest as an employee of ClarBright, a communications firm which represents Welch. I. Suggested language for Research section / Family interaction with infants subsection. Please add to become the new sixth sentence:

In 2020, the journal Nursing in critical care published a systematic review of FNI medical research which confirmed Welch’s finding that depressive and anxiety symptoms were decreased in mothers who participated in FNI.

Explanation: The proposed sentence adds a recent assessment of Welch’s research based on a systematic review in a peer reviewed journal. Per WP:MEDASSESS, editors should rely on “high-level” evidence such as systematic reviews when writing about health effects.

II. Suggested language for Research section / Family interaction with infants subsection. Please add to become the new seventh sentence:

A 2021 systematic review of 1900 studies over the past 20 years found that FNI was one of 12 randomized control-trials that had positive effects on the neonatal brain following preterm birth.

Explanation: Same as item I

Thanks for considering these proposals.KnollLane55901 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC) KnollLane55901 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done. I looked at the first source and it barely mentions Welch, while concluding the research around these interventions (including Welch's moderate-quality, unblinded study) do not amount to any good evidence the methods being discussed have any benefit. How is this useful here? I certainly doesn't "confirm" Welch's findings - that would be a blatant misrepresentation of the source. Bon courage (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)