↓ Skip to main content

Improving the knowledge of labour and delivery nurses in India: a randomized controlled trial of mentoring and case sheets in primary care centres

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 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
Improving the knowledge of labour and delivery nurses in India: a randomized controlled trial of mentoring and case sheets in primary care centres
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1933-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janet Bradley, Krishnamurthy Jayanna, Souradet Shaw, Troy Cunningham, Elizabeth Fischer, Prem Mony, B. M. Ramesh, Stephen Moses, Lisa Avery, Maryanne Crockett, James F. Blanchard

Abstract

Birthing in health facilities in India has increased over the last few years, yet maternal and neonatal mortality rates remain high. Clinical mentoring with case sheets or checklists for nurses is viewed as essential for on-going knowledge transfer, particularly where basic training is inadequate. This paper summarizes a study of the effect of such a programme on staff knowledge and skills in a randomized trial of 295 nurses working in 108 Primary Health Centres (PHCs) in Karnataka, India. Stratifying by district, half of the PHCs were randomly assigned to be intervention sites and provided with regular mentoring visits where case sheet/checklists were a central job and teaching aid, and half to be control sites, where no support was provided except provision of case sheets. Nurses' knowledge and skills around normal labour, labour complications and neonate issues were tested before the intervention began and again one year later. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to examine the effect of mentoring and case sheets. Overall, on none of the 3 measures, did case sheet use without mentoring add anything to the basic nursing training when controlling for other factors. Only individuals who used both case-sheets and received mentoring scored significantly higher on the normal labour and neonate indices, scoring almost twice as high as those who only used case-sheets. This group was also associated with significantly higher scores on the complications of labour index, with their scores 2.3 times higher on average than the case sheet only control group. Individuals from facilities with 21 or more deliveries in a month tended to fare worse on all 3 indices. There were no differences in outcomes according to district or years of experience. This study demonstrates that provision of case sheets or checklists alone is insufficient to improve knowledge and practices. However, on-site mentoring in combination with case sheets can have a demonstrable effect on improving nurse knowledge and skills around essential obstetric and neonatal care in remote rural areas of India. We recommend scaling up of this mentoring model in order to improve staff knowledge and skills and reduce maternal and neonatal mortality in India. This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier No. NCT02004912 , November 27, 2013.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 187 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 16%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 54 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 22%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 60 32%
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 03 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,864,357
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,330
of 7,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,574
of 421,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#50
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 421,312 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 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.