MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022928293 · doi:10.1186/s40985-020-00124-7

Barriers and facilitators to implementing bubble CPAP to improve neonatal health in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

2020· review· en· W3022928293 on OpenAlexafffund
Mai‐Lei Woo Kinshella, Celia R. Walker, Tamanda Hiwa, Marianne Vidler, Alinane Linda Nyondo‐Mipando, Queen Dube, David A. Goldfarb, Kondwani Kawaza

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic health reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGlobal Affairs CanadaInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineStaffingSystematic reviewContinuous positive airway pressureMEDLINECochrane LibraryGrey literatureNeonatal resuscitationNursingIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisPsychological interventionEmergency medicineObstructive sleep apneaResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bubble continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been shown to be effective in supporting breathing in newborns with respiratory distress. The factors that influence implementation in resource-constrained settings remain unclear. The objective of this review is to evaluate the barriers and facilitators of CPAP implementation for newborn care at sub-Saharan African health facilities and how different facility levels and types of bubble CPAP systems may impact utilization. METHODS: A systematic search (database inception to July 2019) was performed on MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), the WHO Regional Database for Africa, African Index Medicus (AIM), African Journals Online, grey literature and the references of relevant articles. Studies that met the inclusion criteria (primary research, bubble CPAP implementation with neonates ≤ 28 days old at a health facility in sub-Saharan Africa) were included in the review and assessed with National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tools. The review protocol was published to PROSPERO (CRD42018116082). RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in the review. Reliable availability of equipment, effectively informing and engaging caregivers and staffing shortages were frequently mentioned barriers to the implementation of bubble CPAP. Understaffed neonatal units and high turnover of nurses and doctors compromised effective training. Provider-to-provider clinical mentorship models as well as affordability and cost-effectiveness of innovative bubble CPAP systems were identified as frequently mentioned facilitators of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: With a strong recommendation by the World Health Organization for its use with premature infants with respiratory distress, it is important to understand the barriers and facilitators that can inform the implementation of bubble CPAP. More research is needed into health system factors that can support or impede the use of this potentially promising intervention.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic health reviewsSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207