ArticleJournal of global health2025
Measuring ENAP interventions for small and/or sick newborns in routine health information systems: indicators and considerations from a WHO expert consultation.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Current trends indicate 63 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are not on track to achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 target of a neonatal mortality rate ≤12 per 1000 live births. The Every Newborn Action Plan (ENAP) prioritised four life-saving interventions for small and/or sick newborns (SSN) in health facilities: neonatal resuscitation, kangaroo mother care, antibiotic treatment of possible serious bacterial infections, and antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth at <34 weeks of gestation. Limited indicator reporting on the use of these interventions in routine health information systems (RHIS) is a barrier to scaling up SSN care. Methods: The World Health Organization (WHO) led a multi-step process to agree coverage indicators for the four SSN interventions, which included a rapid review of existing research and programme reports; expert consultation to review available evidence, deliberate and propose coverage indicators, assess feasibility in RHIS, and identify research gaps. Results: Expert working groups discussed and recommended definitions for each of the four coverage indicators. After considering feasibility and challenges, potential sources of data for each indicator were appraised. Data for these indicators is not always routinely collected in registers, requiring information from clinical case records, which can be challenging in resource-constrained health systems. The proposed indicators were also assessed against established indicator assessment criteria. The need for testing the indicators was emphasised and other research gaps were also identified. Conclusions: Reporting and monitoring the life-saving SSN interventions in routine health information systems (RHIS) is crucial for improving newborn care in LMICs. Urgent consideration must be given to how this data can be collected from health facilities and subsequently reported in RHIS. Improved RHIS measures for these interventions will enable programme managers and policy makers to scale up their use, accelerating reductions in preventable neonatal morbidity and mortality.
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.