↓ Skip to main content

Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) training: What happens to knowledge and skills over time?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
289 Mendeley
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
Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) training: What happens to knowledge and skills over time?
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12884-016-1141-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akash Bang, Archana Patel, Roopa Bellad, Peter Gisore, Shivaprasad S. Goudar, Fabian Esamai, Edward A. Liechty, Sreelatha Meleth, Norman Goco, Susan Niermeyer, William Keenan, Beena D. Kamath-Rayne, George A. Little, Susan B. Clarke, Victoria A. Flanagan, Sherri Bucher, Manish Jain, Nilofer Mujawar, Vinita Jain, Janet Rukunga, Niranjana Mahantshetti, Sangappa Dhaded, Manisha Bhandankar, Elizabeth M. McClure, Waldemar A. Carlo, Linda L. Wright, Patricia L. Hibberd

Abstract

The first minutes after birth are critical to reducing neonatal mortality. Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) is a simulation-based neonatal resuscitation program for low resource settings. We studied the impact of initial HBB training followed by refresher training on the knowledge and skills of the birth attendants in facilities. We conducted HBB trainings in 71 facilities in the NICHD Global Network research sites (Nagpur and Belgaum, India and Eldoret, Kenya), with a 6:1 ratio of facility trainees to Master Trainers (MT). Because of staff turnover, some birth attendants (BA) were trained as they joined the delivery room staff, after the initial training was completed (catch-up initial training). We compared pass rates for skills and knowledge pre- and post- initial HBB training and following refresher training among active BAs. An Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) B tested resuscitation skill retention by comparing post-initial training performance with pre-refresher training performance. We identified factors associated with loss of skills in pre-refresher training performance using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Daily bag and mask ventilation practice, equipment checks and supportive supervision were stressed as part of training. One hundred five MT (1.6 MT per facility) conducted initial and refresher HBB trainings for 835 BAs; 76% had no prior resuscitation training. Initial training improved knowledge and skills: the pass percentage for knowledge tests improved from 74 to 99% (p < 0.001). Only 5% could ventilate a newborn mannequin correctly before initial training but 97% passed the post-initial ventilation training test (p < 0.0001) and 99% passed the OSCE B resuscitation evaluation. During pre-refresher training evaluation, a mean of 6.7 (SD 2.49) months after the initial training, 99% passed the knowledge test, but the successful completion rate fell to 81% for the OSCE B resuscitation skills test. Characteristics associated with deterioration of resuscitation skills were BAs from tertiary care facilities, no prior resuscitation training, and the timing of training (initial vs. catch-up training). HBB training significantly improved neonatal resuscitation knowledge and skills. However, skills declined more than knowledge over time. Ongoing skills practice and monitoring, more frequent retesting, and refresher trainings are needed to maintain neonatal resuscitation skills. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01681017 ; 04 September 2012, retrospectively registered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 289 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 288 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 15%
Researcher 31 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 10%
Student > Postgraduate 23 8%
Student > Bachelor 21 7%
Other 59 20%
Unknown 82 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 21%
Social Sciences 18 6%
Engineering 4 1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 1%
Other 18 6%
Unknown 102 35%
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 18 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,412,312
of 23,577,547 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,029
of 4,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,215
of 418,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#43
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,547 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 4,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. 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 418,416 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.