↓ Skip to main content

In-service training for health professionals to improve care of seriously ill newborns and children in low-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
278 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In-service training for health professionals to improve care of seriously ill newborns and children in low-income countries
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007071.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Newton Opiyo, Mike English

Abstract

A variety of in-service emergency care training courses are currently being promoted as a strategy to improve the quality of care provided to seriously ill newborns and children in low-income countries. Most courses have been developed in high-income countries. However, whether these courses improve the ability of health professionals to provide appropriate care in low-income countries remains unclear. This is the first update of the original review. To assess the effects of in-service emergency care training on health professionals' treatment of seriously ill newborns and children in low-income countries. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, part of The Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com); MEDLINE, Ovid SP; EMBASE, Ovid SP; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge/Science and eight other databases. We performed database searches in February 2015. We also searched clinical trial registries, websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. We applied no date, language or publication status restrictions when conducting the searches. Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted-time-series studies that compared the effects of in-service emergency care training versus usual care were eligible for inclusion. We included only hospital-based studies and excluded community-based studies. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias and confidence in effect estimates (certainty of evidence) for each outcome using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We described results and presented them in GRADE tables. We identified no new studies in this update. Two randomised trials (which were included in the original review) met the review eligibility criteria. In the first trial, newborn resuscitation training compared with usual care improved provider performance of appropriate resuscitation (trained 66% vs usual care 27%, risk ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75 to 3.42; moderate certainty evidence) and reduced inappropriate resuscitation (trained mean 0.53 vs usual care 0.92, mean difference 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.66; moderate certainty evidence). Effect on neonatal mortality was inconclusive (trained 28% vs usual care 25%, risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.48; N = 27 deaths; low certainty evidence). Findings from the second trial suggest that essential newborn care training compared with usual care probably slightly improves delivery room newborn care practices (assessment of breathing, preparedness for resuscitation) (moderate certainty evidence). In-service neonatal emergency care courses probably improve health professionals' treatment of seriously ill babies in the short term. Further multi-centre randomised trials evaluating the effects of in-service emergency care training on long-term outcomes (health professional practice and patient outcomes) are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 277 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 19%
Researcher 47 17%
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 11%
Other 17 6%
Other 44 16%
Unknown 49 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 16%
Social Sciences 21 8%
Psychology 13 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Other 29 10%
Unknown 65 23%

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 11 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,607,882
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,282
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,469
of 229,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#165
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 229,080 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.