Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37160360›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2023

Measuring experience of and satisfaction with newborn care: a scoping review of tools and measures.

Nicole Minckas, Rashmi Kharel, Marcella Ryan-Coker, Ornella Lincetto, Özge Tunçalp, Emma Sacks, Moise Muzigaba, Anayda Portela

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Nicole MinckasInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK nicole.minckas.16@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2650-443X
Rashmi Kharel *Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9611-009X
Marcella Ryan-Coker *Deanery of Clinical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8316-2803
Ornella LincettoDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9420-9467
Özge TunçalpDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5370-682X
Emma SacksDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0743-7208
Moise MuzigabaDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4323-9217
Anayda PortelaDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6368-1585

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandardised measures on experience of care are essential to understanding the care women and newborns receive and to designing appropriate interventions and responses. This review builds on ongoing work in the realm of maternity care and complements it by reviewing existing tools and measures to assess experience of and satisfaction with the care of the newborn.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review of published literature to identify measures and tools of experience (physiological or indirect) and satisfaction with newborn care. We systematically searched five bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 1 December 2022 and contacted professional networks. Using a predefined evidence template, we extracted data on the studies and the tools' characteristics. We mapped the tools and measures against the WHO quality of care frameworks to identify the most frequent measured domains of care and to highlight existing gaps.

resultWe identified 18 292 records of which 72 were eligible. An innovative finding of this review is the inclusion of newborn perspectives through behavioural responses, physiological signals, pain profiles as well as other non-verbal cues as markers of newborn experience. Domains related to parental participation and decision-making, ensuring continuity of care and receiving coordinated care, were the most measured across the included tools.

conclusionComprehensive and validated instruments measuring all aspects of care are needed. Developing a robust theoretical ground will be fundamental to the design and utilisation of standardised tools and measures. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION DETAILS: This review was registered and published on protocol.io (dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bvk7n4zn).

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMalePersonal SatisfactionPregnancychild healthhealth services researchhealth systems evaluationreview

Identifiers

PMID37160360
PMCPMC10186411

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.