| Title |
Neonatal tactile stimulation at birth in a low-resource setting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pediatrics, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12887-018-1279-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea Pietravalle, Francesco Cavallin, Anna Opocher, Stefania Madella, Maria Elena Cavicchiolo, Damiano Pizzol, Giovanni Putoto, Daniele Trevisanuto |
| Abstract |
Stimulation is the most common intervention during neonatal resuscitation at birth, but scarce information is available on the actual methods, timing and efficacy of this basic step. To evaluate the occurrence, patterns and response to tactile stimulation at birth in a low-resource setting. We reviewed 150 video recordings of neonatal resuscitation at Beira Central Hospital (Beira, Mozambique). Timing, method, duration and response to tactile stimulation were evaluated. One hundred two out of 150 neonates (68.0%) received stimulation, while the remaining 48 (32.0%) received positive pressure ventilation and/or chest compressions directly. Overall, 546 stimulation episodes (median 4 episodes per subject, IQR 2-7) were performed. Median time to the first stimulation episode was 134 s (IQR 53-251); 29 neonates (28.4%) received stimulation within the first minute after birth. Multiple techniques of stimulation were administered in 66 neonates (64.7%), while recommended techniques (rubbing the back or flicking the soles of the feet) only in 9 (8.8%). Median duration of stimulation was 17 s (IQR 9-33). Only 9 neonates (8.8%) responded to stimulation. In a low-resource setting, stimulation of newly born infants at birth is underperformed. Adherence to international guidelines is low, resulting in delayed initiation, inadequate technique, prolonged duration and low response to stimulation. Back rubs may provide some benefits, but large prospective studies comparing different methods of stimulation are required. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 33% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
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 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#2,709
of 3,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,999
of 343,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#57
of 61 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 3,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. 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 343,875 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 61 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.