↓ Skip to main content

Basic newborn care and neonatal resuscitation: a multi-country analysis of health system bottlenecks and potential solutions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
310 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
Basic newborn care and neonatal resuscitation: a multi-country analysis of health system bottlenecks and potential solutions
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/1471-2393-15-s2-s4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christabel Enweronu-Laryea, Kim E Dickson, Sarah G Moxon, Aline Simen-Kapeu, Christabel Nyange, Susan Niermeyer, France Bégin, Howard L Sobel, Anne CC Lee, Severin Ritter von Xylander, Joy E Lawn

Abstract

An estimated two-thirds of the world's 2.7 million newborn deaths could be prevented with quality care at birth and during the postnatal period. Basic Newborn Care (BNC) is part of the solution and includes hygienic birth and newborn care practices including cord care, thermal care, and early and exclusive breastfeeding. Timely provision of resuscitation if needed is also critical to newborn survival. This paper describes health system barriers to BNC and neonatal resuscitation and proposes solutions to scale up evidence-based strategies. The maternal and newborn bottleneck analysis tool was applied by 12 countries in Africa and Asia as part of the Every Newborn Action Plan process. Country workshops engaged technical experts to complete the survey tool, which is designed to synthesise and grade health system "bottlenecks" that hinder the scale up of maternal-newborn intervention packages. We used quantitative and qualitative methods to analyse the bottleneck data, combined with literature review, to present priority bottlenecks and actions relevant to different health system building blocks for BNC and neonatal resuscitation. Eleven of the 12 countries provided grading data. Overall, bottlenecks were graded more severely for resuscitation. The most severely graded bottlenecks for BNC were health workforce (8 of 11 countries), health financing (9 out of 11) and service delivery (7 out of 9); and for neonatal resuscitation, workforce (9 out of 10), essential commodities (9 out of 10) and service delivery (8 out of 10). Country teams from Africa graded bottlenecks overall more severely. Improving workforce performance, availability of essential commodities, and well-integrated health service delivery were the key solutions proposed. BNC was perceived to have the least health system challenges among the seven maternal and newborn intervention packages assessed. Although neonatal resuscitation bottlenecks were graded more severe than for BNC, similarities particularly in the workforce and service delivery building blocks highlight the inextricable link between the two interventions and the need to equip birth attendants with requisite skills and commodities to assess and care for every newborn. Solutions highlighted by country teams include ensuring more investment to improve workforce performance and distribution, especially numbers of skilled birth attendants, incentives for placement in challenging settings, and skills-based training particularly for neonatal resuscitation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 310 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 306 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 19%
Researcher 44 14%
Student > Bachelor 34 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 9%
Student > Postgraduate 18 6%
Other 57 18%
Unknown 70 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 73 24%
Social Sciences 19 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 2%
Other 31 10%
Unknown 82 26%