ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Communication among health professionals using newborn technology for care: an exploratory scoping review.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neonatal technologies can significantly improve care quality and reduce newborn deaths. However, their successful implementation in complex health system contexts requires effective communication among health professionals. A comprehensive understanding of communication among professionals using newborn technologies is needed to inform technology implementation. We conducted a scoping review of the current literature. We searched the grey literature and online resources, including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar, for articles. We included English literature that discussed the use of technology in newborn care. 13 papers met the inclusion criteria. We analysed the findings using a thematic approach. 11 of the 13 papers included were based on research conducted in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), with continuous positive airway pressure being the most frequently covered technology. The communication information was limited, as these topics were just one of many themes in the papers. Most studies focused on nurses, encompassing aspects of communication such as knowledge sharing and interactions during patient management, monitoring and documentation. However, there was little detail on the nature of these interactions or where they occurred. Factors influencing communication included physical contexts such as infrastructure, socio-organisational contexts such as hierarchy and levels of skills, and technology-related factors such as perceived usefulness and ease of use. If and how these factors interacted with each other to shape technology-related communication was unclear. We highlight gaps in the literature on communication among health professionals using newborn technology for care. We stress the importance of carefully examining the physical and socio-organisational contextual factors and technology-specific attributes that shape communication in all settings, including LMICs. Research aiming to better understand the context of technology implementation will support the successful implementation of potentially life-saving technologies.
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.