ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
A study on awareness and perception about perinatal death auditing among health care workers in two districts of Karnataka State, India.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. 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
Background: To start perinatal death auditing, doctors should have good knowledge about it. Objectives: To know the awareness and perceptions of doctors about different aspects of perinatal death auditing like 1) different types of contributors; 2) high-risk approach; 3) consequences; 4) documentary requirements; and 5) existing system of mortality meeting/child death reviews. Methodology: The perinatal death auditing project was implemented in two districts of Karnataka state. As a part of the pre-intervention survey, awareness and perceptions of doctors and a few health care administrators were explored. They were requested to participate in the study. Those who consented were approached in their hospitals and interviewed. Trained medical social workers conducted the interviews. Awareness was scored from 0 to 3 with 0 being no knowledge and 3 being good knowledge. Perceptions were scored from 0 to 3 with 0 being no negative perceptions and 3 being fear of legal consequences. The responses were documented, scored, and described. Results: Though 22 doctors were eligible, only 16 consented to participate in the study. Knowledge of doctors about different contributors was inadequate. They were apprehensive about legal consequences. They knew that documentation could protect them and be useful in a court of law. They were not clear about the conduct of mortality meeting/existing system of child death reviews. Conclusion: Knowledge was inadequate. They were apprehensive about legal consequences. Training of doctors and allaying apprehensions are required for starting perinatal death auditing.
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.