↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of an educational program for essential newborn care in resource-limited settings: Essential Care for Every Baby

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Evaluation of an educational program for essential newborn care in resource-limited settings: Essential Care for Every Baby
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12887-015-0382-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anu Thukral, Jocelyn Lockyer, Sherri L. Bucher, Sara Berkelhamer, Carl Bose, Ashok Deorari, Fabian Esamai, Sonia Faremo, William J. Keenan, Douglas McMillan, Susan Niermeyer, Nalini Singhal

Abstract

Essential Care for Every Baby (ECEB) is an evidence-based educational program designed to increase cognitive knowledge and develop skills of health care professionals in essential newborn care in low-resource areas. The course focuses on the immediate care of the newborn after birth and during the first day or until discharge from the health facility. This study assessed the overall design of the course; the ability of facilitators to teach the course; and the knowledge and skills acquired by the learners. Testing occurred at 2 global sites. Data from a facilitator evaluation survey, a learner satisfaction survey, a multiple choice question (MCQ) examination, performance on two objective structured clinical evaluations (OSCE), and pre- and post-course confidence assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Pre-post course differences were examined. Comments on the evaluation form and post-course group discussions were analyzed to identify potential program improvements. Using ECEB course material, master trainers taught 12 facilitators in India and 11 in Kenya who subsequently taught 62 providers of newborn care in India and 64 in Kenya. Facilitators and learners were satisfied with their ability to teach and learn from the program. Confidence (3.5 to 5) and MCQ scores (India: pre 19.4, post 24.8; Kenya: pre 20.8, post 25.0) improved (p < 0.001). Most participants demonstrated satisfactory skills on the OSCEs. Qualitative data suggested the course was effective, but also identified areas for course improvement. These included additional time for hands-on practice, including practice in a clinical setting, the addition of video learning aids and the adaptation of content to conform to locally recommended practices. ECEB program was highly acceptable, demonstrated improved confidence, improved knowledge and developed skills. ECEB may improve newborn care in low resource settings if it is part of an overall implementation plan that addresses local needs and serves to further strengthen health systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Unspecified 15 13%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 28 24%
Unknown 26 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 34%
Unspecified 14 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 29 25%
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 10 July 2015.
All research outputs
#7,362,737
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#1,354
of 3,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,993
of 264,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#10
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 264,049 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 65% of its contemporaries.