Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33156939›Full record

SynthesisHealth policy and planning2020

Evaluating implementation strategies for essential newborn care interventions in low- and low middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Kimberly Peven, Debra Bick, Edward Purssell, Torill Alise Rotevatn, Jane Hyldgaard Nielsen, Cath Taylor

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health policy and planning, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Kimberly PevenFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8WA, UK.
Debra BickWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, UK.
Edward PurssellSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Torill Alise RotevatnPublic Health and Epidemiology Group, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Jane Hyldgaard NielsenPublic Health and Epidemiology Group, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Cath TaylorSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neonatal mortality remains a significant health problem in low-income settings. Low-cost essential newborn care (ENC) interventions with proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness exist but have not reached high coverage (≥90%). Little is known about the strategies used to implement these interventions or how they relate to improved coverage. We conducted a systematic review of implementation strategies and implementation outcomes for ENC in low- and low middle-income countries capturing evidence from five medical and global health databases from 1990 to 2018. We included studies of implementation of delayed cord clamping, immediate drying, skin-to-skin contact (SSC) and/or early initiation of breastfeeding implemented in the first hour (facility-based studies) or the 1st day (community-based studies) of life. Implementation strategies and outcomes were categorized according to published frameworks: Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change and Outcomes for Implementation Research. The relationship between implementation strategies and outcomes was evaluated using standardized mean differences and correlation coefficients. Forty-three papers met inclusion criteria. Interventions included community-based care/health promotion and facility-based support and health care provider training. Included studies used 3-31 implementation strategies, though the consistency with which strategies were applied was variable. Conduct educational meetings was the most frequently used strategy. Included studies reported 1-4 implementation outcomes with coverage reported most frequently. Heterogeneity was high and no statistically significant association was found between the number of implementation strategies used and coverage of ENC. This review highlights several challenges in learning from implementation of ENC in low- and low middle-income countries, particularly poor description of interventions and implementation outcomes. We recommend use of UK Medical Research Council guidelines (2015) for process evaluations and checklists for reporting implementation studies. Improved reporting of implementation research in this setting is necessary to learn how to improve service delivery and outcomes and thereby reduce neonatal mortality.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesInfant MortalityBreast FeedingFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInfant, NewbornPovertyChild healthdeveloping countrieshealth systems researchhealth workersinfant mortalityinternational healthmaternal and child healthstrategysystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID33156939
PMCPMC7646733

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.