Observational studyBMJ open2024
Midwives as trainers for a neonatal clinical decision support system at four rural health facilities in eastern Uganda: a mixed-methods observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate acceptability and effectiveness of midwives as trainers for NoviGuide, a neonatal clinical decision support system (CDSS).
designA 20-months, mixed-methods open cohort study. SETTINGS AND
participantsNurse-midwives at four rural health facilities in eastern Uganda.
methodsWe developed a midwife-led trainer programme and instructed two midwives as NoviGuide Trainers in three 3-hour-long sessions. Trainers trained all nurse-midwives at each site in single 3-hour-long sessions. Using the Kirkpatrick model, we evaluated acceptability at level 1 for participant's reaction and level 3 for participant's attitudes towards the programme. We evaluated effectiveness at level 2 for newly learnt skills, and level 3 for participant's uptake of NoviGuide and perception of newborn care practices. We used surveys and focus groups at baseline, 3 months and 6 months and viewed usage data from September 2020 through May 2022.
resultsAll 49 participants were female, 23 (46.9%) owned smartphones, 12 (24.5%) accessed the internet daily and 17 (34.7%) were present by study end following staff changes. All participants perceived the use of midwives as NoviGuide Trainers to be an acceptable approach to introduce NoviGuide (mean 5.9 out of 6, SD 0.37). Participants reported gaining new skills and confidence to use NoviGuide; some, in turn, trained others. Participants reported improvement in newborn care. Uptake of NoviGuide was high. Of 49 trained participants, 48 (98%) used NoviGuide. A total of 4045 assessments of newborns were made. Of these, 13.8% (558/4045) were preterm, 17.5% (709/4045) weighed under 2.5 kg and 21.1% (855/4045) had a temperature <36.5°C.
conclusionThis midwife-led programme was acceptable and led to self-reported improvement in newborn care and high uptake of NoviGuide among nurse-midwives. Task shifting CDSS expert roles to midwives could facilitate large-scale implementation. However, resources like internet coverage, reliable electricity and mobile devices should be considered in low-resource settings.
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.