SynthesisBMJ global health2026
Implementation of essential newborn care in settings of high-intensity armed conflict: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Barriers and facilitators to maternal, newborn, and child health service utilization among internally displaced populations in Somalia.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA disproportionate share of global neonatal deaths occurs in armed-conflict settings, where progress in reducing neonatal mortality remains slow. This systematic review aims to synthesise the literature on implementing essential newborn care (ENC) interventions in high-intensity armed conflict settings.
methodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and the grey literature from January 2014 to March 2024. Eligible original studies in English implemented at least one component of ENC in settings experiencing high-intensity armed conflict. Data were extracted on study characteristics, ENC implementation and outcomes. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) for quantitative studies and GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research for qualitative and mixed-method studies.
results32 studies were included, primarily from hospital settings (n=15, 47%) in Pakistan (n=6, 19%) and South Sudan (n=5, 16%). Interventions focused on health workforce (n=19, 59%) and service delivery (n=8, 25%), predominantly through community health worker training (n=27, 84%). Positive effects were observed for ENC coverage (8/10 studies) and health outcomes (7/12 studies), particularly for interventions promoting breastfeeding, skin-to-skin contact, chlorhexidine applications to the umbilical cord and quality improvement approaches. Neonatal resuscitation training showed variable effects. Key facilitators included local healthcare workers providing emergency supervision and the use of audio-visual or mobile technologies, while barriers included insecurity, conflict-imposed movement restrictions, violence against health facilities and workers, the inability of supervisors to access facilities and the community, population displacement and degradation of ENC quality.
conclusionImplementation of ENC interventions, particularly breastfeeding promotion, Kangaroo Mother Care and cord care, that do not depend on functional health facilities can improve coverage and neonatal health outcomes in high-intensity armed conflicts, but requires adaptations to context-specific challenges. Strategies to strengthen the health workforce, leverage community health workers and integrate technology may enhance the delivery of lifesaving newborn care amidst armed conflict. Our review was limited by a lack of grey and non-English literature and studies on caring for small and/or sick newborns, implementation of comprehensive care packages and effectiveness evaluations. Further research is needed on comprehensive ENC packages and innovative approaches to overcome systemic barriers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023388617.
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.