SynthesisBMJ global health2022
A systematic review of newborn health interventions in humanitarian settings.
Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of essential newborn care in settings of high-intensity armed conflict: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2026Pooled it
- Health interventions and stakeholder roles in neonatal mortality reduction within low-income countries: A scoping review.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Review
- Article
- Evolution of the humanitarian roster system for sexual and reproductive health.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Article
- Intersectoral interventions: integration for impact on preterm birth.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- Child public health interventions for conflict-affected populations: A systematic review.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Born too soon in a resource-limited setting: A 10-year mixed methods review of a special care baby unit for refugees and migrants on the Myanmar-Thailand border.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlmost half of the under-5 deaths occur in the neonatal period and most can be prevented with quality newborn care. The already vulnerable state of newborns is exacerbated in humanitarian settings. This review aims to assess the current evidence of the interventions being provided in these contexts, identify strategies that increase their utilisation and their effects on health outcomes in order to inform involved actors in the field and to guide future research.
methodsSearched for peer-reviewed and grey literature in four databases and in relevant websites, for published studies between 1990 and 15 November 2021. Search terms were related to newborns, humanitarian settings, low-income and middle-income countries and newborn health interventions. Quality assessment using critical appraisal tools appropriate to the study design was conducted. Data were extracted and analysed using a narrative synthesis approach.
resultsA total of 35 articles were included in this review, 33 peer-reviewed and 2 grey literature publications. The essential newborn care (ENC) interventions reported varied across the studies and only three used the Newborn Health in Humanitarian Settings: Field Guide as a guideline document. The ENC interventions most commonly reported were thermal care and feeding support whereas delaying of cord clamping and administration of vitamin K were the least. Training of healthcare workers was the most frequent strategy reported to increase utilisation. Community interventions, financial incentives and the provision of supplies and equipment were also reported.
conclusionThere is insufficient evidence documenting the reality of newborn care in humanitarian settings in low-income and middle-income countries. There is a need to improve the reporting of these interventions, including when there are gaps in service provision. More evidence is needed on the strategies used to increase their utilisation and the effect on health outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020199639.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.