MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894814534 · doi:10.9745/ghsp-d-18-00147

Helping Babies Breathe, Second Edition: A Model for Strengthening Educational Programs to Increase Global Newborn Survival

2018· article· en· W2894814534 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Science and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMathematics educationMedicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Helping Babies Breathe (HBB), a skills-based program in neonatal resuscitation for birth attendants in resource-limited settings, has been implemented in over 80 countries since 2010. Implementation studies of HBB incorporating low-dose high-frequency practice and quality improvement show substantial reductions in fresh stillbirth and first-day neonatal mortality. Revision of the program aimed to further augment provider and facilitator skills and address gaps in implementation with the goal of improving neonatal survival. METHODS: The Utstein Formula for Survival-Medical Science X Educational Efficiency X Local Implementation = Survival-provided a framework for the revisions. The 2015 Neonatal Resuscitation Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation informed scientific updates, which were harmonized with the 2012 World Health Organization Basic Newborn Resuscitation Guidelines. Published literature and program reports, consensus guidelines on reprocessing equipment, systematic collection of suggestions from frontline users, and responses to a semistructured online questionnaire informed educational/implementation revisions. Links to maternal care were added. Draft materials underwent Delphi review and field testing in India and Sierra Leone. An Utstein-style meeting of stakeholders identified key actions for successful implementation. RESULTS: Scientific revisions included expectant management of infants with meconium-stained amniotic fluid, limitation of suctioning, and initiating and continuing effective ventilation until spontaneous respirations. Frontline users (N=102) suggested augmented simulation methods to build confidence and competence and additional guidance for facilitators on implementation. Users identified a need for sufficient practice during the workshop, systematized ongoing practice, and enough simulators for participants. Field trials refined approaches to self-reflection, feedback and debriefing, and quality improvement. Utstein meeting stakeholders validated the importance of quality improvement and use of data to improve outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The second edition of HBB provides a newer paradigm of learning for providers that incorporates workshop practice, self-reflection, and feedback and debriefing to reinforce learning as well as the promotion of mentorship and development of facilitators, systems for low-dose high-frequency practice in facilities, and quality improvement related to neonatal resuscitation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it