Cited by 20Neonatal Respiratory Health ResearchInfant Development and Preterm CareInnovations in Medical Education

Using a peer mentorship approach improved the use of neonatal continuous positive airway pressure and related outcomes in Malawi

Asibon, Aba, Lufesi, Norman, Choudhury, Allysha, Olvera, Samantha, Molyneux, Elizabeth, Oden, Maria, Richards‐Kortum, Rebecca, Kawaza, Kondwani·2020·Acta Paediatrica

Abstract

Aim: This study evaluated whether peer mentorship was an effective and sustainable way of improving and maintaining knowledge and skills on neonatal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in a low‐resource setting with a high turnover of healthcare providers. Methods: The Malawi Ministry of Health recruited five nurses with considerable CPAP experience and provided them with mentorship training from July to August 2014. The mentors then provided 1‐week on‐site mentorship for 113 colleagues at 10 secondary and one tertiary hospital where gaps in neonatal CPAP use had been identified. CPAP competencies and outcomes were compared 3 months before and after each mentorship. Results: In the 3 months before and after mentorship, the average CPAP competency score increased from 32 ± 4% to 97 ± 2%, while CPAP usage increased from 7% to 23% among eligible neonates. Survival following CPAP mentorship increased from 23% to 35%, but this was not significant due to the small sample size. Both mentees and mentors reported useful transfers of knowledge and skills when using CPAP. Conclusion: Mentorship effectively bridged the knowledge and skills gaps among health workers and increased CPAP use, competency scores and survival rates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/apa.15025

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Asibon, A., Lufesi, N., Choudhury, A., Olvera, S., Molyneux, E., Oden, M., Richards‐Kortum, R., & Kawaza, K.
Affiliations
  • Rice University (US)
  • Ministry of Health (MW)
  • Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital (MW)
  • Rice 360 Institute for Global Health Houston Texas
Corresponding author
Asibon, Aba
Venue
Acta Paediatrica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-10-16
Volume
109
Issue
4
Pages
705-710
ISSN
  • 0365-1436 (ISSN-L)
  • 0803-5253
  • 1651-2227
OpenAlex
W2974610292
Cited by
20
References
18
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Paediatrica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
United States Agency for International Development (AID‐OAA‐A‐13‐00014)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Neonatal Respiratory Health Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
peer mentoring, neonatal resuscitation, nursing competencies, knowledge transfer, resource-limited settings, neonatal survival, Malawi
MeSH terms
Health Personnel, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Malawi, Mentors, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, Tertiary Care Centers

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