Trial reportJournal of the National Medical Association2010
Primary care clinicians' knowledge and confidence about newborn screening for sickle cell disease: randomized assessment of educational strategies.
Trial report in Journal of the National Medical Association, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for patients and caregivers to improve knowledge of sickle cell disease and recognition of its related complications.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Understanding and improving health education among first-time parents of infants with sickle cell anemia in Alabama: a mixed methods approach.Journal of pediatric hematology/oncology · 2015Article
- Community healthcare workers' perception of an educational intervention in the care of patients with sickle cell disease in Brazil.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2015Article
- Obstetrician-gynecologists' knowledge of sickle cell disease screening and management.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn Massachusetts, primary care clinicians receive and act upon hemoglobinopathy newborn screening results. We assessed clinicians' knowledge, confidence, and practices regarding hemoglobinopathy newborn screening, and the effect of mailed educational materials vs interactive seminar on knowledge and confidence.
methodsA randomized educational intervention trial was performed at 15 community health sites. Practices were randomized to determine the order in which the educational interventions were administered: mailed educational materials first or interactive seminars on the management of hemoglobinopathy newborn screening results first. Clinicians' demographics, knowledge, confidence, and practices were assessed by a survey. Posttests were administered soon after the intervention.
resultsResponses came from 85 of 170 eligible providers (50%). Twenty-nine percent of respondents provided both pretests and posttests. In respondents with paired data, knowledge on a 5-point scale improved by 1.4 +/- 0.4 (mean +/- standard error of the mean, p = .003), while self-efficacy on a 16-point scale increased by 1.3 +/- 0.3, p = .002. There were no significant differences between seminar and mailed-materials groups.
conclusionsBoth educational strategies led to modest improvements in knowledge about newborn screening for hemoglobin disorders. Enhancing knowledge and confidence about newborn screening-related tasks may improve clinicians' capacity to act upon newborn screening results for hemoglobinopathies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.