ArticleJournal of global health2024
Introducing a standardised register for strengthening the inpatient management of newborns and sick children: Implementation research in selected health facilities of Bangladesh.
Article in Journal of global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: It is imperative to maintain accurate documentation of clinical interventions aimed at enhancing the quality of care for newborns and sick children. The National Newborn Health and IMCI programme of Bangladesh led the development of a standardised register for managing newborns and sick children under five years of age during inpatient care through stakeholder engagement. We aimed to assess the implementation outcomes of the standardised register in the inpatient department. Methods: We conducted implementation research in two district hospitals and two sub-district hospitals of Kushtia and Dinajpur districts from November 2022 to January 2023 to assess the implementation outcomes of the standardised register. We assessed the following World Health Organization implementation outcome variables: usability, acceptability, adoption (actual use), fidelity (completeness and accuracy), and utility (quality of care) of the register against preset benchmarks. We collected data through structured interviews with health care providers; participant enrolment; and data extraction from inpatient registers and case record forms. Results: The average usability and acceptability scores among health care providers were 73 (standard deviation (SD) = 14) and 82 (SD = 14) out of 100, respectively. The inpatient register recorded 96% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 95-97) of under-five children who were admitted to the inpatient department (adoption - actual use). The proportions of completed data elements in the inpatient register were above the preset benchmark of 70% for all the assessed data elements except 'investigation done' (24%; 95% CI = 23-26) (fidelity - completeness). The percentage agreements between government-appointed nurses posted and study-appointed nurses were above the preset benchmark of 70% for all the reported variables (fidelity - accuracy). The kappa coefficient for the overall level of agreement between these two groups regarding reported variables indicated moderate to substantial agreement. The proportion of newborns with sepsis receiving injectable antibiotics was 62% (95% CI = 47-75) (utility - quality of care). We observed some variability in the completeness and accuracy of the inpatient register by district and facility type. Conclusions: The inpatient register was positively received by health care providers, with evaluations of implementation outcome variables showing encouraging results. Our findings could inform evidence-based decision-making on the implementation and scale-up of the inpatient register in Bangladesh, as well as other low- and middle-income countries.
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.