Trial reportJournal of global health2025
An innovative, digital approach to training district health care providers on essential newborn care skills: findings from a pilot cluster-randomised trial in Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Trial report in Journal of global health, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: In Lao People's Democratic Republic, the skills of newborn care providers at district hospitals degrades soon after training due to lack of regular supervision and/or refresher training. This pilot trial evaluated the potential effectiveness and acceptability of the novel intervention to maintain providers' early essential newborn care (EENC) knowledge and skills. Methods: This was a parallel, cluster-randomised pilot trial with embedded focus group discussions in Lao People's Democratic Republic. Newborn care providers at four district hospitals (clusters) in two provinces participated. The four clusters were randomised into two arms, within each province. Both arms initially received standard EENC coaching. The intervention arm used repeated self-practise combined with mobile phone-based supportive supervision from EENC facilitators, while the control arm received no additional support. The primary outcome, a standardised assessment of provider's EENC knowledge and skills measured at three months post-randomisation, was analysed by intention-to-treat. Qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. Results: Forty-four providers were recruited: 22 in each arm. Thirty-seven providers and 19 facilitators completed data collection and participated in focus group discussions. The knowledge and skill scores at three months were 0.59 points (95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.40, 2.52) and 3.67 points (95% CI = -2.90, 10.24) higher in the intervention arm than in the control arm, after adjusting for baseline scores. Both providers and facilitators viewed the intervention positively, though time constraints limited self-practise sessions. While they believed it could improve their clinical performance, confidence in sustaining the intervention was low. Conclusions: Though not powered for statistical significance, this study showed the intervention may help maintain newborn care skills and was well accepted. A definitive trial is warranted to evaluate its effectiveness on clinical practice and health outcomes, along with further investigation into factors that support sustainability. Registration: This trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12623000957695).
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.