↓ Skip to main content

A process evaluation of PRONTO simulation training for obstetric and neonatal emergency response teams in Guatemala

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 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
A process evaluation of PRONTO simulation training for obstetric and neonatal emergency response teams in Guatemala
Published in
BMC Medical Education, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0401-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dilys M. Walker, Francesca Holme, Sarah T. Zelek, Marisela Olvera-García, Airaín Montoya-Rodríguez, Jimena Fritz, Jenifer Fahey, Héctor Lamadrid-Figueroa, Susanna Cohen, Edgar Kestler

Abstract

Despite expanding access to institutional birth in Guatemala, maternal mortality remains largely unchanged over the last ten years. Enhancing the quality of emergency obstetric and neonatal care is one important strategy to decrease mortality. An innovative, low-tech, simulation-based team training program (PRONTO) aims to optimize care provided during obstetric and neonatal emergencies in low-resource settings. We conducted PRONTO simulation training between July 2012 and December 2012 in 15 clinics in Alta Verapaz, Huehuetenango, San Marcos, and Quiche, Guatemala. These clinics received PRONTO as part of a larger pair-matched cluster randomized trial of a comprehensive intervention package. Training participants were obstetric and neonatal care providers that completed pre- and post- training assessments for the two PRONTO training modules, which evaluated knowledge of evidence-based practice and self-efficacy in obstetric and neonatal topics. Part of the training included a session for trained teams to establish strategic goals to improve clinical practice. We utilized a pre/post-test design to evaluate the impact of the course on both knowledge and self-efficacy with longitudinal fixed effects linear regression with robust standard errors. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the correlation between knowledge and self-efficacy. Poisson regression was used to assess the association between the number of goals achieved and knowledge, self-efficacy, and identified facility-level factors. Knowledge and self-efficacy scores improved significantly in all areas of teaching. Scores were correlated for all topics overall at training completion. More than 60 % of goals set to improve clinic functioning and emergency care were achieved. No predictors of goal achievement were identified. PRONTO training is effective at improving provider knowledge and self-efficacy in training areas. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of the training on provider use of evidence-based practices and on maternal and neonatal health outcomes. NCT01653626.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 190 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 17%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Other 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 55 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 17%
Social Sciences 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 66 35%
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 22 March 2019.
All research outputs
#14,260,335
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,965
of 3,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,474
of 263,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#25
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 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 3,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 263,455 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 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.