“You have to take action”: changing knowledge and attitudes towards newborn care practices during crisis in South Sudan
Open accessAbstract
Highest rates of neonatal mortality occur in countries that have recently experienced conflict. International Medical Corps implemented a package of newborn interventions in June 2016, based on the Newborn health in humanitarian settings: field guide, targeting community- and facility-based health workers in displaced person camps in South Sudan. We describe health workers' knowledge and attitudes toward newborn health interventions, before and after receiving clinical training and supplies, and recommend dissemination strategies for improved uptake of newborn guidelines during crises. A mixed methods approach was utilised, including pre-post knowledge tests and in-depth interviews. Study participants were community- and facility-based health workers in two internally displaced person camps located in Juba and Malakal and two refugee camps in Maban from March to October 2016. Mean knowledge scores for newborn care practices and danger signs increased among 72 community health workers (pre-training: 5.8 [SD: 2.3] vs. post-training: 9.6 [SD: 2.1]) and 25 facility-based health workers (pre-training: 14.2 [SD: 2.7] vs. post-training: 17.4 [SD: 2.8]). Knowledge and attitudes toward key essential practices, such as the use of partograph to assess labour progress, early initiation of breastfeeding, skin-to-skin care and weighing the baby, improved among skilled birth attendants. Despite challenges in conflict-affected settings, conducting training has the potential to increase health workers' knowledge on neonatal health post-training. The humanitarian community should reinforce this knowledge with key actions to shift cultural norms that expand the care provided to women and their newborns in these contexts.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Following training of CHWs and HWs, in South Sudan there was an increase in correct responses by these professionals regarding the identification of newborn danger signs.
“Following training of CHWs and HWs, in South Sudan there was an increase in correct responses by these professionals regarding the identification of newborn danger signs,53”
From A systematic review of newborn health interventions in humanitarian settings (2022) · cites this paper as [53]
Evidence from South Sudan shows that training of HWs increased the intention to promote skin-to-skin care.
“Evidence from South Sudan shows that training of HWs increased the intention to promote skin-to-skin care,53”
From A systematic review of newborn health interventions in humanitarian settings (2022) · cites this paper as [53]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 37
- Authors
- Sami, S., Kerber, K., Tomczyk, B., Amsalu, R., Jackson, D., Scudder, E., Dimiti, A., Meyers, J., Kenneth, K., Kenyi, S., Kennedy, C. E., Ackom, K., & Mullany, L. C.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Save the Children (US)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
- United Nations Children's Fund (US)
- Director General, Directorate of Reproductive Health, Ministry of Health, Juba, Republic of South Sudan
- Field Research Coordinator, International Medical Corps, Juba, Republic of South Sudan
- Senior Health Advisor, International Medical Corps, London, UK.
- Corresponding author
- Sami, Samira
- Venue
- Reproductive Health Matters
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-11-30
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 51
- Pages
- 124-139
- ISSN
- 0968-8080 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-9576
- OpenAlex
- W2772815686
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 4.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Reproductive Health Matters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
- UWC Research Repository (University of the Western Cape) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- University of the Western Cape Electronic Theses and Dissertations Repository (University of the Western Cape) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- The Elma Relief Foundation
- Save the Children
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Conflict Studies
- Keywords
- neonatal care, newborn health, humanitarian settings, conflict-affected settings, health worker knowledge and attitudes, community health workers, skilled birth attendants, neonatal danger signs, partograph, early initiation of breastfeeding, skin-to-skin care, displaced persons camps, refugee camps, South Sudan, cultural norms
- MeSH terms
- South Sudan, Maternal-Child Health Services, Adult, Breast Feeding, Community Health Workers, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Postnatal Care, Quality of Health Care, Refugees, Kangaroo-Mother Care Method
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review