ArticleBMJ open2024
Barriers and enablers of quality high-acuity neonatal care in sub-Saharan Africa: protocol for a synthesis of qualitative evidence.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in sub-Saharan Africa face limited resources and systemic challenges, resulting in poorer quality care, higher infant mortality, and dissatisfaction among both patients and healthcare workers. This review aims to bridge the knowledge gap by identifying and analysing the key barriers and enablers affecting quality care, informing interventions to improve patient outcomes and overall NICU effectiveness in this critical region. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review will search and gather data from a variety of databases, including JBI Database, Cochrane Database, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL/EBSCO, EMBASE, PEDro, POPLINE, Proquest, OpenGrey (SIGLE), Google Scholar, Google, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and HINARI. The review will also include unpublished studies and grey literature from a variety of sources. This review will only include qualitative and mixed-methods studies that explore the barriers and enablers of quality care for high-acuity neonates using qualitative data collection and analysis methods. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research will be used by two independent reviewers to critically appraise the eligible studies. Any disagreements that arise will be resolved through discussion. Qualitative research findings will be pooled using the meta-aggregation approach in QARI software, where possible. Only unequivocal and credible findings will be included in the synthesis. If textual pooling is not possible, the findings will be presented in narrative form. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review does not require ethical clearance, and the findings will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders to ensure the widest possible outreach and impact. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023473134.
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.