ArticlePloS one2025
Feasibility and acceptability of using the BabySaver resuscitation platform and NeoBeat together for neonatal resuscitation in a low-resource setting: A pre-post implementation study.
Article in PloS one, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBabySaver and NeoBeat devices have the potential to enable bedside neonatal resuscitation, with an intact cord in the presence of the mother. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of using them together for neonatal resuscitation in a low-resource setting.
methodsThis was a mixed methods study conducted over a period of 11 months at Mbale Hospital in Uganda. We enrolled 150 mother-infant dyads into a pre-post study. During the pre-implementation phase, neonatal resuscitation was conducted based on the existing standard of care whilst in the post-implementation phase we evaluated the BabySaver and NeoBeat. Our primary outcome was the proportion of babies resuscitated at the bedside with an intact cord. Using in-depth interviews and an inductive thematic analysis approach, we also explored experiences of health workers and mothers with use of the BabySaver and NeoBeat.
resultsBedside resuscitation increased significantly in the post-implementation period (9.3% versus 45.3%, p < 0.001 while early cord clamping decreased (26.7% versus 12.0%, p = 0.042). The median time to successful resuscitation was shorter post-implementation (5 versus 8 minutes, p < 0.001). Infants in the post-implementation phase had higher axillary temperatures at birth and at 0-, 10-, 20-, and 30-minutes post-resuscitation. Neonatal morbidity was lower: APGAR score <7 at 5 minutes (aPR: 0.36; 95%CI: 0.26-0.50), transfer to postnatal ward with mother (aPR: 9.27; 95%CI: 2.23-38.48), transfer to neonatal unit (aPR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.56-0.78). Health workers found the devices easy to use, and bedside resuscitation reassured mothers, fostering trust and satisfaction. Barriers included misconceptions about delayed cord clamping, hypothermia concerns, cross-infection risks, and difficult use in theatre.
conclusionThe BabySaver and NeoBeat improved bedside neonatal resuscitation and reduced morbidity. Bedside resuscitation was also acceptable to the health workers and mothers. Scaling up should address misconceptions about delayed cord clamping and optimize usability in theatre settings where many asphyxiated infants are delivered.
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.