ArticleBMJ open2026
Optimising summary infographics for clinical practice guidelines on child health: qualitative user testing study with healthcare workers in Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa.
Article in BMJ open, 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo optimise the dissemination of clinical practice guideline (CPG) summary infographics on newborn and child health to healthcare workers (HCWs) in Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa.
designQualitative user testing using think-aloud interviews with local HCWs to identify their preferences for and barriers to using CPG summary infographics.
participants26 HCWs involved in newborn and child healthcare, including participants from Lilongwe (n=8), Calabar (n=10) and Cape Town (n=8).
interventionsDraft CPG summary infographics on newborn and child health topics explored by participants during interviews. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Participants' perceptions of the infographics in terms of findability, usability, understandability, desirability, identification, accessibility, credibility, usefulness and value.
resultsMost participants found the infographics easy to understand and appreciated the visual design. However, participants had difficulty interpreting the strength of recommendations and were sometimes unclear about the target population and distinction between interventions and comparators. Navigation and the use of medical terminology also presented challenges, while some images did not reflect the local clinical environments. Perceptions of usefulness varied across guideline topics and countries.
conclusionsUser testing identified important barriers to the use of CPG summary infographics. Feedback informed revisions to the infographics before final dissemination, including clarifying the meaning of recommendation strength, adjusting terminology, bringing key content to the foreground and refining imagery. Early engagement with end users in the development of CPG dissemination products can help ensure that recommendations are clearly conveyed and that the content and visuals are appropriate to local clinical contexts and needs.
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.