The impact of the Helping Babies Survive program on neonatal outcomes and health provider skills: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to evaluate the impact of the Helping Babies Survive program on neonatal outcomes and healthcare provider knowledge and skills. INTRODUCTION: The Helping Babies Survive program consists of three modules: Helping Babies Breathe, Essential Care for Every Baby, and Essential Care for Small Babies. It was developed to reduce preventable newborn deaths through skill-based learning using simulation, learning exercises, and peer-to-peer training of healthcare providers in low-resource areas. Despite the widespread increase in healthcare provider training through Helping Babies Survive and the growing number of studies that have been conducted, there has been no systematic review of the Helping Babies Survive program to date. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review included studies on healthcare providers and/or birth attendants providing essential neonatal care during and post birth. Types of interventions were any Helping Babies Survive module (Helping Babies Breathe, Essential Care for Every Baby, Essential Care for Small Babies). Studies including experimental study designs with the following outcomes were considered: neonatal outcomes and/or healthcare provider knowledge and skills obtained, maintained, and used over time. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest Databases, Scopus and CINAHL were searched for published studies in English between January 2010 to December 2016. Critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Conflicts were solved through consensus with a third reviewer. Quantitative data were extracted from included studies independently by two reviewers using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI. Conflicts were solved through consensus with a third reviewer. Quantitative data was, where possible, pooled in statistical meta-analysis using RevMan (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane). Where statistical pooling was not possible the findings have been reported narratively. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies were identified - 15 on Helping Babies Breathe (n = 172,685 infants and n = 2,261 healthcare providers) and two on Essential Care for Every Baby (n = 206 healthcare providers). No studies reported on Essential Care for Small Babies. Helping Babies Survive was found to significantly reduce fresh stillbirth rates and first day mortality rates, but was not found to influence stillbirth rates or mortality rates, measured at seven or 28 days post birth. Short-term improvements were significant in knowledge and skills scores but not significant in sustainability over time. Additionally, implementation of resuscitations skills in clinical practice related to the Helping Babies Breathe module including drying/stimulation, suction, and bag and mask ventilation did not show a significant increase after training even though the number of fresh stillbirth and first-day mortality rate decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Helping Babies Survive has a significant positive impact on early neonatal outcomes, including fresh stillbirth and first-day mortality primarily through Helping Babies Breathe, but limited conclusions can be drawn about its impact on other neonatal outcomes. While Helping Babies Survive was found to improve immediate knowledge and skill acquisition, there is some evidence that one-time training may not be sufficient for sustained knowledge or the incorporation of key skills related to resuscitation into clinical practice. Continued research on the sustained knowledge and skills is needed to evaluate the long-term impact of the Helping Babies Survive program.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».