Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30533040›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Essential newborn care practice and its predictors among mother who delivered within the past six months in Chencha District, Southern Ethiopia, 2017.

Abera Mersha, Nega Assefa, Kedir Teji, Shitaye Shibiru, Rasha Darghawth, Agegnehu Bante

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

6 authors.

Abera MershaDepartment of Nursing, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Arba Minch University, Arba Minch, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-4366-4128
Nega AssefaSchool of Public Health, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0003-0341-2329
Kedir TejiSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.
Shitaye ShibiruDepartment of Nursing, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Arba Minch University, Arba Minch, Ethiopia.
Rasha DarghawthBusiness Development Officer with CARE Ethiopia and Cuso International, Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor, Harar, Ethiopia.
Agegnehu BanteDepartment of Nursing, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Arba Minch University, Arba Minch, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0003-0583-6635

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionComponents of essential newborn care and neonatal resuscitation are proven interventions for reducing neonatal mortality rate and stillbirth rates. Various studies have been conducted, but they failed in assessing health workers that delivered essential newborn care, facets of the health care system, and different traditional beliefs. As such, the primary aim of this study is to fill the gaps of the aforementioned previous studies, assess mothers' current practice of essential newborn care and identify factors affecting newborn care practices in Chencha District, Southern Ethiopia.

methodsA mixed type, community-based cross sectional study was conducted among 630 study participants by using one-stage cluster sampling method. Three focus group discussions (FGD) with purposively selected 18 mothers were involved for qualitative study. Data entry was carried out by Epi data version 3.1 and analysis was done by SPSS window version 22. Binary logistic regression was used to identify predictors. Qualitative data were analyzed deductively by using thematic framework analysis approach by using Open Code version 4.02.

resultsThis study found that 38.4% of mothers had good practices in essential newborn care. Of the neonates, 52.9% received safe cord care, 71.0% received optimal thermal care and 74.8% had good neonatal feeding. Factors such as mothers receiving antenatal care, attending pregnant mothers meetings, receiving immediate postnatal care, wealth index, whether a complication was faced during delivery and overall knowledge of mothers were statistically significantly associated with practice.

conclusionsThis study indicated that the current rate of essential newborn care practice was low. As such, strengthening the provision of antenatal and postnatal care services, information communication education and behavioral change communications on essential newborn care are recommended.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInfant CareAdolescentAdultBreast FeedingCross-Sectional StudiesEthiopiaFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInfant, NewbornLogistic ModelsMothersPregnancyPrenatal CareYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30533040
PMCPMC6289501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.