Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28348194›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2017

Cross-sectional observational assessment of quality of newborn care immediately after birth in health facilities across six sub-Saharan African countries.

Joseph de Graft-Johnson, Linda Vesel, Heather E Rosen, Barbara Rawlins, Stella Abwao, Goldy Mazia, Robert Bozsa, Winifrede Mwebesa, Neena Khadka, Rosemary Kamunya and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Joseph de Graft-JohnsonMaternal and Child Survival Program, Washington, DC, USA.
Linda VeselInnovations for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, Concern Worldwide, New York, New York, USA.
Heather E RosenJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Barbara RawlinsMaternal and Child Survival Program, Washington, DC, USA.
Stella AbwaoMaternal and Child Survival Program, Washington, DC, USA.
Goldy MaziaMaternal and Child Survival Program, Washington, DC, USA.
Robert BozsaICF International, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Winifrede MwebesaSave the Children, Washington, DC, USA.
Neena KhadkaMaternal and Child Survival Program, Washington, DC, USA.
Rosemary KamunyaJHPIEGO Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ashebir GetachewConsultant Obstetrician Gynecologist, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Gaudiosa TibaijukaMaternal and Child Survival Program, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Jean Pierre RakotovaoMaternal and Child Health Integrated Program, Antananarivo, Madagascar.
Alemnesh TekleberhanMaternal and Child Survival Program, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo present information on the quality of newborn care services and health facility readiness to provide newborn care in 6 African countries, and to advocate for the improvement of providers' essential newborn care knowledge and skills.

designCross-sectional observational health facility assessment.

settingEthiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Rwanda and Tanzania.

participantsHealth workers in 643 facilities. 1016 health workers were interviewed, and 2377 babies were observed in the facilities surveyed.

main outcome measuresIndicators of quality of newborn care included (1) provision of immediate essential newborn care: thermal care, hygienic cord care, and early and exclusive initiation of breast feeding; (2) actual and simulated resuscitation of asphyxiated newborn infants; and (3) knowledge of health workers on essential newborn care, including resuscitation.

resultsSterile or clean cord cutting instruments, suction devices, and tables or firm surfaces for resuscitation were commonly available. 80% of newborns were immediately dried after birth and received clean cord care in most of the studied facilities. In all countries assessed, major deficiencies exist for essential newborn care supplies and equipment, as well as for health worker knowledge and performance of key routine newborn care practices, particularly for immediate skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding initiation. Of newborns who did not cry at birth, 89% either recovered on their own or through active steps taken by the provider through resuscitation with initial stimulation and/or ventilation. 11% of newborns died. Assessment of simulated resuscitation using a NeoNatalie anatomic model showed that less than a third of providers were able to demonstrate ventilation skills correctly.

conclusionsThe findings shared in this paper call attention to the critical need to improve health facility readiness to provide quality newborn care services and to ensure that service providers have the necessary equipment, supplies, knowledge and skills that are critical to save newborn lives.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherencePerinatal CareAfrica South of the SaharaClinical CompetenceCross-Sectional StudiesEquipment and Supplies, HospitalFemaleHealth FacilitiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePractice Guidelines as TopicPregnancybreastfeedingcross-sectional observational assessmentessential newborn careneonatal resuscitationnewborn care

Identifiers

PMID28348194
PMCPMC5372100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.