↓ Skip to main content

Understanding health systems to improve community and facility level newborn care among displaced populations in South Sudan: a mixed methods case study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
257 Mendeley
Title
Understanding health systems to improve community and facility level newborn care among displaced populations in South Sudan: a mixed methods case study
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12884-018-1953-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samira Sami, Ribka Amsalu, Alexander Dimiti, Debra Jackson, Solomon Kenyi, Janet Meyers, Luke C. Mullany, Elaine Scudder, Barbara Tomczyk, Kate Kerber

Abstract

Targeted clinical interventions have been associated with a decreased risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality. In conflict-affected countries such as South Sudan, however, implementation of lifesaving interventions face barriers and facilitators that are not well understood. We aimed to describe the factors that influence implementation of a package of facility- and community-based neonatal interventions in four displaced person camps in South Sudan using a health systems framework. We used a mixed method case study design to document the implementation of neonatal interventions from June to November 2016 in one hospital, four primary health facilities, and four community health programs operated by International Medical Corps. We collected primary data using focus group discussions among health workers, in-depth interviews among program managers, and observations of health facility readiness. Secondary data were gathered from documents that were associated with the implementation of the intervention during our study period. Key bottlenecks for implementing interventions in our study sites were leadership and governance for comprehensive neonatal services, health workforce for skilled care, and service delivery for small and sick newborns. Program managers felt national policies failed to promote integration of key newborn interventions in donor funding and clinical training institutions, resulting in deprioritizing newborn health during humanitarian response. Participants confirmed that severe shortage of skilled care at birth was the main bottleneck for implementing quality newborn care. Solutions to this included authorizing the task-shifting of emergency newborn care to mid-level cadre, transitioning facility-based traditional birth attendants to community health workers, and scaling up institutions to upgrade community midwives into professional midwives. Additionally, ongoing supportive supervision, educational materials, and community acceptance of practices enabled community health workers to identify and refer small and sick newborns. Improving integration of newborn interventions into national policies, training institutions, health referral systems, and humanitarian supply chain can expand emergency care provided to women and their newborns in these contexts.

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 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 257 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 13%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 5%
Other 41 16%
Unknown 88 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 16%
Social Sciences 19 7%
Engineering 12 5%
Unspecified 5 2%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 96 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 July 2022.
All research outputs
#6,949,499
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,921
of 4,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,759
of 330,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#63
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 330,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.