ArticleBMJ open2024
Fathers' knowledge of neonatal danger signs and its associated factors in Northwest Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study.
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.
- Assessing maternal knowledge of neonatal danger signs in Egypt: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess fathers' knowledge of neonatal danger signs and their associated factors in Northwest Ethiopia.
designCommunity-based cross-sectional study.
settingEnarji and Enawga Woreda, Northwest Ethiopia.
participantsThe study was conducted on 613 participants in Enarji and Enawga Woreda from 13 May to 13 June 2022. Participants were selected using stratified simple random sampling. Participants with serious illnesses who were unable to respond to the questions were excluded from the study. A total of 602 participants completed the questionnaire. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews conducted by four well-trained data collectors. To assess participants' knowledge, 10 structured and standardised questions were adopted from WHO and the Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health. The data were analysed using SPSS V.26. A logistic regression model was fitted to identify factors associated with knowledge about neonatal danger signs. An adjusted OR (AOR) with a 95% CI and a p value <0.05 was used to declare factors as significantly associated.
resultLess than a quarter (23.26%) of fathers had good knowledge of neonatal danger signs (95% CI 19.9, 26.8). The study also found that several factors were significant predictors of good knowledge, including: secondary education (AOR 2.98, 95% CI 1.08, 8.24), college education or higher (AOR 3.45, 95% CI 1.09, 10.85), number of children (AOR 3.68, 95% CI 1.62, 8.34), history of sickness in the index baby (AOR 2.18, 95% CI 1.18, 4.01), fathers' attendance on postnatal care visits (AOR 4.32, 95% CI 2.06, 9.08), history of neonatal death (AOR 3.94, 95% CI 1.80, 8.64), receiving information on neonatal danger signs (AOR 2.71, 95% CI 1.30, 5.64) and health professionals as a source of information (AOR 3.27, 95% CI 1.52, 7.04). These factors were all significantly associated with good knowledge of neonatal danger signs.
conclusionFathers' knowledge of neonatal danger signs was found to be low. Therefore, substantial efforts are needed to enhance their knowledge. It is essential to develop strategies that actively involve fathers in the continuum of postnatal care for both mothers and newborns. Additionally, providing targeted information on neonatal danger signs through health professionals can significantly improve fathers' knowledge.
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.