ArticleBMC health services research2020
Identifying the know-do gap in evidence-based neonatal care practices among informal health care providers-a cross-sectional study from Ujjain, India.
Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Understanding Internal and External Drivers Influencing the Prescribing Behaviour of Informal Healthcare Providers with Emphasis on Antibiotics in Rural India: A Qualitative Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMore than a quarter of global neonatal deaths are reported from India, and a large proportion of these deaths are preventable. However, in the absence of robust public health care systems in several states in India, informal health care providers (IHCPs) with no formal medical education are the first contact service providers. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge of IHCPs in basic evidence-based practices in neonatal care in Ujjain district and investigated factors associated with differences in levels of knowledge.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using a questionnaire with multiple-choice questions covering the basic elements of neonatal care. The total score of the IHCPs was calculated. Multivariate quantile regression model was used to look for association of IHCPs knowledge score with: the practitioners' age, years of experience, number of patients treated per day, and whether they attended children in their practice.
resultsOf the 945 IHCPs approached, 830 (88%) participated in the study. The mean ± SD score achieved was 22.3 ± 7.7, with a median score of 21 out of maximum score of 48. Although IHCPs could identify key tenets of enhancing survival chances of neonates, they scored low on the specifics of cord care, breastfeeding, vitamin K use to prevent neonatal hemorrhage, and identification and care of low-birth-weight babies. The practitioners particularly lacked knowledge about neonatal resuscitation, and only a small proportion reported following up on immunizations. Results of quantile regression analysis showed that more than 5 years of practice experience and treating more than 20 patients per day had a statistically significant positive association with the knowledge score at higher quantiles (q75
conclusionsThe present study highlighted that know-do gap exists in evidence-based practices for all key areas of neonatal care tested among the IHCPs. The study provides the evidence that some IHCPs do possess knowledge in basic evidence-based practices in neonatal care, which could be built upon by future educational interventions. Targeting IHCPs can be an innovative way to reach a large rural population in the study setting and to improve neonatal care services.
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.