MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390346904 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3806981/v1

Knowledge and practice regarding neonatal resuscitation and associated factors among nurses and midwives in Ethiopia: a systematic review protocol

2023· review· en· W4390346904 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abera Mersha, Nefsu Awoke, Shitaye Shibiru

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJimma University
KeywordsProtocol (science)Neonatal resuscitationResuscitationMedicineNursingFamily medicineMedical educationMedical emergencyAlternative medicineEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Neonatal resuscitation is critical newborn care that can save lives. Nurses and midwives play a critical role by assessing newborn condition and initiating resuscitation if necessary. Understanding the knowledge and practice of neonatal resuscitation, as well as the factors that influence them, is essential for designing effective strategies in resource-constrained settings. This systematic review will assess what nurses and midwives in Ethiopia know and do about neonatal resuscitation, and what factors may affect their knowledge and practice. Methods This systematic review will look for and gather data from a variety of databases, including JBI, Cochrane, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro, POPLINE, Proquest, OpenGrey, Google Scholar, Google, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, and HINARI. It will also include unpublished studies and grey literature from a variety of sources. The review will only include quantitative observational or experimental studies that report on knowledge or practice of neonatal resuscitation. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale will be used to choose which studies are eligible. Two researchers will independently assess the quality of the included studies and extract the data. They will resolve any disagreements through discussion. Heterogeneity, or variation between the studies, will be assessed using forest plots and the I2 statistic. If there is a lot of heterogeneity, a random-effects model will be used to pool the data. Subgroup analysis will be used to explore the possible sources of this heterogeneity. Publication bias, or the tendency for studies with positive results to be more likely to be published, will be assessed using funnel plots and Egger's regression test. The statistical software package STATA version 17 will be used to conduct the meta-analysis. An association will be considered statistically significant if the p-value is less than 0.05. Discussion Neonatal mortality remains high in Ethiopia, especially in rural areas. Neonatal resuscitation is a key intervention that can save the lives of babies, but more research is needed to assess the knowledge and practice of neonatal resuscitation among nurses and midwives in Ethiopia. Systematic review registration number in PROSPERO: CRD42023459107.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.015
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.007

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.387 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicGlobal Maternal and Child Health→French-language works237,207→