ArticleBMJ global health2025
Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of the Hospital to Home discharge and follow-up programme in rural Uganda: a mixed-methods intervention study.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOver 60% of premature infants are born in Africa or South Asia. Infants born early, small or who become sick after birth have a higher risk of death, poor growth and developmental impairments. Innovative interventions tailored for low- and middle-income countries are essential to help these newborns survive and develop optimally. This study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of Hospital to Home (H2H), a discharge and follow-up programme for small and sick newborns in rural Uganda.
methodsWe compared two cohorts of high-risk hospitalised neonates in Uganda: a historical-comparison cohort receiving standard facility-based care and an intervention cohort that received the H2H programme, a hospital and community spanning package of interventions designed to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. We compared 6-month corrected neurodevelopmental, growth, nutritional and vaccination outcomes between the cohorts complemented by qualitative interviews of caregivers, community health workers and health facility staff.
resultsWe recruited 191 participants: 91 historical-comparison cohort (born between July and September 2018), and 100 intervention cohort (born July 2019 to February 2020). No statistically significant difference was seen in neurodevelopmental outcomes (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.46). Improved vaccination completion (88.5% intervention vs 76.9% comparison, p=0.041), and exclusive breastfeeding rates (42% vs 6.6%, p<0.001) were seen. Caregivers and healthcare workers reported the intervention to be acceptable and feasible in this rural Ugandan setting.
conclusionThe H2H programme was feasible and acceptable to caregivers and healthcare providers. Improved vaccination and exclusive breastfeeding rates were seen in the intervention group when compared with a historical comparison cohort in this rural Ugandan setting. Further investigation on the short and long-term effectiveness of the H2H programme in a government health services setting is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51636372.
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.