Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of the Hospital to Home discharge and follow-up programme in rural Uganda: a mixed-methods intervention study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Over 60% of premature infants are born in Africa or South Asia. Infants born early, small or who become sick after birth have a higher risk of death, poor growth and developmental impairments. Innovative interventions tailored for low- and middle-income countries are essential to help these newborns survive and develop optimally. This study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of Hospital to Home (H2H), a discharge and follow-up programme for small and sick newborns in rural Uganda. METHODS: We compared two cohorts of high-risk hospitalised neonates in Uganda: a historical-comparison cohort receiving standard facility-based care and an intervention cohort that received the H2H programme, a hospital and community spanning package of interventions designed to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. We compared 6-month corrected neurodevelopmental, growth, nutritional and vaccination outcomes between the cohorts complemented by qualitative interviews of caregivers, community health workers and health facility staff. RESULTS: We recruited 191 participants: 91 historical-comparison cohort (born between July and September 2018), and 100 intervention cohort (born July 2019 to February 2020). No statistically significant difference was seen in neurodevelopmental outcomes (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.46). Improved vaccination completion (88.5% intervention vs 76.9% comparison, p=0.041), and exclusive breastfeeding rates (42% vs 6.6%, p<0.001) were seen. Caregivers and healthcare workers reported the intervention to be acceptable and feasible in this rural Ugandan setting. CONCLUSION: The H2H programme was feasible and acceptable to caregivers and healthcare providers. Improved vaccination and exclusive breastfeeding rates were seen in the intervention group when compared with a historical comparison cohort in this rural Ugandan setting. Further investigation on the short and long-term effectiveness of the H2H programme in a government health services setting is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51636372.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".