Introduction The following analysis is related to the article, “The effect of nursing quality improvement and mobile health interventions on infant sleep practices” by Moon et al. (2017). The study under review is a randomized clinical trial, which is indicated in its title. The purpose of the trial was to determine whether two interventions, nursing quality improvement (NQI) and mobile health intervention, increased mothers’ adherence to infant safe sleep practices when used separately and combined. This paper will analyze the article’s strengths and weaknesses, reliability and validity, ethics, and topic summary. Overall, the reviewed trial may be considered well-designed, providing reliable and valid results, and performed in accordance with ethics, although some limitations are also present. Overall Strengths and Weaknesses The article by Moon et al. (2017) explored the effectiveness of two interventions on improving infant safe sleep practices, which could be used to reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The study used cluster randomization and provided a clear explanation of the rationale for the chosen trial design. A detailed description of interventions for experimental and control groups is also present. The findings indicated that mobile health intervention improved mothers’ self-reported adherence to infant safe sleep practices, whereas the effect of the NQI intervention appeared to be not statistically significant. These results have implications for practitioners and guide further research into this field. For example, Moon et al. (2017) stated that it was necessary to examine whether the widespread use of mobile health intervention was feasible and whether it decreased the rate of SIDS. Thus, this study has significant strengths that make it a well-designed randomized clinical trial. Yet, the article also has certain limitations regarding the generalizability of the results. First of all, researchers excluded non-English speaking mothers from the study sample, which implies that the generalizability of the results cannot be applied to the non-English speaking population. Apart from that, the rate of participants lost to follow-up was 21%, and this group was comprised mostly of “younger, black, single, and less well educated” women (Moon et al., 2017, p. 358). As a result, the findings regarding the effectiveness of mobile health intervention in promoting infant safe sleep practices may not apply to this population. In addition, the trial did not assess adverse events and clinical outcomes, such as SIDS rates. The researchers used participants’ self-reported adherence to safe sleep practices. Although self-reported data has many advantages, its weakness is that some participants’ responses may be exaggerated or biased. Finally, the authors did not describe the procedure of blinding, which may imply that it was not used in this study. Reliability and Validity The study under consideration is a well-designed randomized clinical trial, which puts it at Level II in the hierarchy of evidence. The randomization procedure is clearly described and well-explained in the article. Moon et al. (2017) divided sixteen hospitals into four groups and then randomly assigned one of the four interventions to each of the groups using computer-generated random numbers and a blocked