ArticleBMJ global health2022
Deliberation-based learning: strengthening neonatal care in China.
Article in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents a case example from China, where detailed deliberations were instrumental in bringing together national and subnational managers to tailor implementation protocols for neonatal care strategies at provincial and county levels. The China National Health Development Research Center (CNHDRC) organised deliberations to support the formulation of strategies for improving early essential neonatal care for rural areas. The aim was to help counties, the lowest level jurisdiction in China, learn what could work locally, and to help provinces and the national government learn what should inform national policy and be disseminated widely in China's decentralised health system. It became clear that central-level stakeholders needed to learn how to help counties support the pilots. CNHDRC staff, national-level experts and academics visited pilot provinces and counties to discuss local policies, initiatives and challenges (including with patients), build a common understanding of the project and identify local support needs including by examining health records and observing health facilities. What followed were county-specific reports with priority interventions and implementation plans, which were further refined through county-level meetings. They helped central stakeholders better understand and address variations in county capacities and needs.
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.