ArticleJournal of global health2026
Newborn and family-centered care: a scoping review on related newborn rights and principles.
Article in Journal of global health, 2026. 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
Background: Newborn- and family-centered care (N&FCC) is essential for improving newborn and parental outcomes, yet no previous review focused on related newborn rights and principles. In this scoping review, we aimed to identify and synthetise related rights of hospitalised newborns and principles of N&FCC enunciated in the literature, assess correspondence of rights with international human rights instruments, examine alignments between rights and principles, and identify gaps. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to 20 August 2025 for records that explicitly described the rights of hospitalised newborns or articulated principles relevant to N&FCC. We thematically synthesised the identified rights and principles into overarching sets, assessed them for mutual alignment, and mapped rights to five fundamental international human rights instruments. Results: Twelve of the 13 447 retrieved records were eligible for inclusion. We identified 40 enunciated rights and 57 principles, with no single source providing a comprehensive list of either. Thematic analysis yielded 12 overarching sets of rights and 6 overarching sets of principles which showed substantial mutual alignment. Each set of rights was supported by two or more international human rights instruments. The analysis of principles enunciated so far in the literature highlighted that newborns are not always explicitly identified as the intended subject of N&FCC. Newborn rights and N&FCC principles were predominantly developed by groups/initiatives in high income countries. Conclusions: This review provides a comprehensive synthesis of newborn rights and N&FCC principles, demonstrating correspondence between newborn rights and international human rights law instruments, and alignment between rights and principles, thereby strengthening conceptual foundations of N&FCC. Our findings suggest that N&FCC should be considered a rights-based entitlement of hospitalised newborns, rather than solely a model of care. Future work should clarify the intended focus of N&FCC, examine mechanism for translating newborn rights into standards of care, and involve stakeholders from both high- and low- and middle-income countries to support its wider implementation.
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.