↓ Skip to main content

Cause of neonatal deaths in Northern Ethiopia: a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 Mendeley
Title
Cause of neonatal deaths in Northern Ethiopia: a prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3979-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hayelom Gebrekirstos Mengesha, Berhe W. Sahle

Abstract

Despite the significant reduction in childhood mortality, neonatal mortality has shown little or no concomitant decline worldwide. The dilemma arises in that the lack of documentation of cause of death in developing countries, where registration of vital events is virtually nonexistent. Understanding of the causes of death in neonates is important to guide public health interventions. The present study identifies the common causes of neonatal death in Ethiopia. A prospective cohort study was conducted among neonates born between April 2014 and July 2014 in seven hospitals, in Tigray region, Ethiopia. Mothers were interviewed by midwifes respecting risk factors and infant survival. For neonates who died in hospital, causes of death were extracted from medical records, whereas a verbal autopsy method provided presumptive assignment of cause of death for those infants who died at home. Of the1152 live births, there were 68 deaths (63 per 1000 live births). Two thirds of deaths were attributable to prematurity 23 (34%) or asphyxia 21 (31%). Slight variance was seen between the morality patterns in early and late neonatal periods. In the early neonatal period, 37% were due to prematurity, while asphyxia (35%) was more common in the late neonatal period. All infection-related deaths occurred in neonate-mother dyads from rural areas. Prematurity, asphyxia, and infections were the leading causes of neonatal deaths in Tigray region during the study period. Causes of deaths identified during early and late neonatal mortality differed, which clearly indicates the need for responsive and evidence-based interventions and policies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 263 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 18%
Lecturer 23 9%
Student > Bachelor 19 7%
Researcher 18 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 7%
Other 28 11%
Unknown 110 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 66 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 2%
Other 18 7%
Unknown 116 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2017.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#14,502
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#362,555
of 426,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#205
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.