ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2026
Evaluating a neonatal public health education and empowerment programme to reduce infant mortality risks: insights from parents and facilitators in the midlands, UK.
Article in Frontiers in global women's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Infant mortality rates in the Midlands are among the highest in the UK, with regional and ethnic disparities highlighting persistent inequalities, and risks greatest for infants born preterm. This calls for inclusive educational programmes that support diverse families in improving infant safety. The STORK (Supportive Training Offering Reassurance and Knowledge) parent education and empowerment programme, which includes a digital application to support learning and reinforce key messages, was developed to equip parents, families and carers with practical knowledge and skills to reduce key risks associated with infant mortality. This study evaluates the perceived usefulness of the STORK programme among parents of preterm infants in reducing risks associated with infant mortality and explores the future implementation of the programme in terms of programme facilitators' barriers and facilitators to programme delivery. Methodology: A descriptive qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews was conducted at University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL), UK. Participants were recruited between June and December 2024 and met inclusion criteria based on recent or prior engagement with the STORK programme. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using Braun and Clarke's six-step approach. Results: Sixteen parents who had received the programme and three STORK facilitators participated in the study. Parents reported that the STORK programme enhanced their confidence and preparedness in infant care, particularly in areas such as emergency response, safe sleep practices, and infection prevention. They expressed a preference for hands-on, early, and flexible delivery of the programme. The app was valued as a reference tool, though it was infrequently accessed following programme delivery. Facilitators highlighted the programme's positive impact but identified resource shortages and the need to further culturally tailor the STORK programme to better meet the needs of diverse populations as key challenges to effective delivery. Conclusion: This evaluation underscores the importance of culturally, parent-focused education in addressing persistent disparities in infant mortality. Insights from families and facilitators provide valuable guidance for refining and scaling education and empowerment programmes, helping to optimise reach, engagement, and impact across diverse healthcare settings.
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.