↓ Skip to main content

Bubble CPAP to support preterm infants in rural Rwanda: a retrospective cohort study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Bubble CPAP to support preterm infants in rural Rwanda: a retrospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12887-015-0449-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evrard Nahimana, Masudi Ngendahayo, Hema Magge, Jackline Odhiambo, Cheryl L. Amoroso, Ernest Muhirwa, Jean Nepo Uwilingiyemungu, Fulgence Nkikabahizi, Regis Habimana, Bethany L. Hedt-Gauthier

Abstract

Complications from premature birth contribute to 35 % of neonatal deaths globally; therefore, efforts to improve clinical outcomes of preterm (PT) infants are imperative. Bubble continuous positive airway pressure (bCPAP) is a low-cost, effective way to improve the respiratory status of preterm and very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. However, bCPAP remains largely inaccessible in resource-limited settings, and information on the scale-up of this technology in rural health facilities is limited. This paper describes health providers' adherence to bCPAP protocols for PT/VLBW infants and clinical outcomes in rural Rwanda. This retrospective chart review included all newborns admitted to neonatal units in three rural hospitals in Rwanda between February 1st and October 31st, 2013. Analysis was restricted to PT/VLBW infants. bCPAP eligibility, identification of bCPAP eligibility and complications were assessed. Final outcome was assessed overall and by bCPAP initiation status. There were 136 PT/VLBW infants. For the 135 whose bCPAP eligibility could be determined, 83 (61.5 %) were bCPAP-eligible. Of bCPAP-eligible infants, 49 (59.0 %) were correctly identified by health providers and 43 (51.8 %) were correctly initiated on bCPAP. For the 52 infants who were not bCPAP-eligible, 45 (86.5 %) were correctly identified as not bCPAP-eligible, and 46 (88.5 %) did not receive bCPAP. Overall, 90 (66.2 %) infants survived to discharge, 35 (25.7 %) died, 3 (2.2 %) were referred for tertiary care and 8 (5.9 %) had unknown outcomes. Among the bCPAP eligible infants, the survival rates were 41.8 % (18 of 43) for those in whom the procedure was initiated and 56.5 % (13 of 23) for those in whom it was not initiated. No complications of bCPAP were reported. While the use of bCPAP in this rural setting appears feasible, correct identification of eligible newborns was a challenge. Mentorship and refresher trainings may improve guideline adherence, particularly given high rates of staff turnover. Future research should explore implementation challenges and assess the impact of bCPAP on long-term outcomes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Unknown 131 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 18%
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 27 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Social Sciences 14 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 30 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,238,817
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#1,814
of 3,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,004
of 274,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#33
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. 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 274,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.