↓ Skip to main content

Count every newborn; a measurement improvement roadmap for coverage data

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
320 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
Count every newborn; a measurement improvement roadmap for coverage data
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/1471-2393-15-s2-s8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah G Moxon, Harriet Ruysen, Kate J Kerber, Agbessi Amouzou, Suzanne Fournier, John Grove, Allisyn C Moran, Lara ME Vaz, Hannah Blencowe, Niall Conroy, A Metin Gülmezoglu, Joshua P Vogel, Barbara Rawlins, Rubayet Sayed, Kathleen Hill, Donna Vivio, Shamim A Qazi, Deborah Sitrin, Anna C Seale, Steve Wall, Troy Jacobs, Juan Gabriel Ruiz Peláez, Tanya Guenther, Patricia S Coffey, Penny Dawson, Tanya Marchant, Peter Waiswa, Ashok Deorari, Christabel Enweronu-Laryea, Shams El Arifeen, Anne CC Lee, Matthews Mathai, Joy E Lawn

Abstract

The Every Newborn Action Plan (ENAP), launched in 2014, aims to end preventable newborn deaths and stillbirths, with national targets of ≤12 neonatal deaths per 1000 live births and ≤12 stillbirths per 1000 total births by 2030. This requires ambitious improvement of the data on care at birth and of small and sick newborns, particularly to track coverage, quality and equity. In a multistage process, a matrix of 70 indicators were assessed by the Every Newborn steering group. Indicators were graded based on their availability and importance to ENAP, resulting in 10 core and 10 additional indicators. A consultation process was undertaken to assess the status of each ENAP core indicator definition, data availability and measurement feasibility. Coverage indicators for the specific ENAP treatment interventions were assigned task teams and given priority as they were identified as requiring the most technical work. Consultations were held throughout. ENAP published 10 core indicators plus 10 additional indicators. Three core impact indicators (neonatal mortality rate, maternal mortality ratio, stillbirth rate) are well defined, with future efforts needed to focus on improving data quantity and quality. Three core indicators on coverage of care for all mothers and newborns (intrapartum/skilled birth attendance, early postnatal care, essential newborn care) have defined contact points, but gaps exist in measuring content and quality of the interventions. Four core (antenatal corticosteroids, neonatal resuscitation, treatment of serious neonatal infections, kangaroo mother care) and one additional coverage indicator for newborns at risk or with complications (chlorhexidine cord cleansing) lack indicator definitions or data, especially for denominators (population in need). To address these gaps, feasible coverage indicator definitions are presented for validity testing. Measurable process indicators to help monitor health service readiness are also presented. A major measurement gap exists to monitor care of small and sick babies, yet signal functions could be tracked similarly to emergency obstetric care. The ENAP Measurement Improvement Roadmap (2015-2020) outlines tools to be developed (e.g., improved birth and death registration, audit, and minimum perinatal dataset) and actions to test, validate and institutionalise proposed coverage indicators. The roadmap presents a unique opportunity to strengthen routine health information systems, crosslinking these data with civil registration and vital statistics and population-based surveys. Real measurement change requires intentional transfer of leadership to countries with the greatest disease burden and will be achieved by working with centres of excellence and existing networks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 316 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 16%
Researcher 44 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 10%
Other 20 6%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Other 76 24%
Unknown 78 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 15%
Social Sciences 27 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 2%
Other 43 13%
Unknown 84 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 May 2023.
All research outputs
#5,168,053
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,433
of 4,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,740
of 274,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#30
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 274,644 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 73% of its contemporaries.