Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 356

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Count every newborn; a measurement improvement roadmap for coverage data

Open access
Moxon, Sarah G, Ruysen, Harriet, Kerber, Kate J, Amouzou, Agbessi, Fournier, Suzanne, Grove, John, Moran, Allisyn C, Vaz, Lara ME, Blencowe, Hannah, Conroy, Niall, Gülmezoglu, A Metin, Vogel, Joshua P, Rawlins, Barbara, Sayed, Rubayet, Hill, Kathleen, Vivio, Donna, Qazi, Shamim A, Sitrin, Deborah, Seale, Anna C, Wall, Steve, Jacobs, Troy, Ruiz Peláez, Juan Gabriel, Guenther, Tanya, Coffey, Patricia S, Dawson, Penny, Marchant, Tanya, Waiswa, Peter, Deorari, Ashok, Enweronu-Laryea, Christabel, Arifeen, Shams El, Lee, Anne CC, Mathai, Matthews, Lawn, Joy E·2015·BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Every Newborn Action Plan (ENAP), launched in 2014, aims to end preventable newborn deaths and stillbirths, with national targets of ≤12 neonatal deaths per 1000 live births and ≤12 stillbirths per 1000 total births by 2030. This requires ambitious improvement of the data on care at birth and of small and sick newborns, particularly to track coverage, quality and equity. METHODS: In a multistage process, a matrix of 70 indicators were assessed by the Every Newborn steering group. Indicators were graded based on their availability and importance to ENAP, resulting in 10 core and 10 additional indicators. A consultation process was undertaken to assess the status of each ENAP core indicator definition, data availability and measurement feasibility. Coverage indicators for the specific ENAP treatment interventions were assigned task teams and given priority as they were identified as requiring the most technical work. Consultations were held throughout. RESULTS: ENAP published 10 core indicators plus 10 additional indicators. Three core impact indicators (neonatal mortality rate, maternal mortality ratio, stillbirth rate) are well defined, with future efforts needed to focus on improving data quantity and quality. Three core indicators on coverage of care for all mothers and newborns (intrapartum/skilled birth attendance, early postnatal care, essential newborn care) have defined contact points, but gaps exist in measuring content and quality of the interventions. Four core (antenatal corticosteroids, neonatal resuscitation, treatment of serious neonatal infections, kangaroo mother care) and one additional coverage indicator for newborns at risk or with complications (chlorhexidine cord cleansing) lack indicator definitions or data, especially for denominators (population in need). To address these gaps, feasible coverage indicator definitions are presented for validity testing. Measurable process indicators to help monitor health service readiness are also presented. A major measurement gap exists to monitor care of small and sick babies, yet signal functions could be tracked similarly to emergency obstetric care. CONCLUSIONS: The ENAP Measurement Improvement Roadmap (2015-2020) outlines tools to be developed (e.g., improved birth and death registration, audit, and minimum perinatal dataset) and actions to test, validate and institutionalise proposed coverage indicators. The roadmap presents a unique opportunity to strengthen routine health information systems, crosslinking these data with civil registration and vital statistics and population-based surveys. Real measurement change requires intentional transfer of leadership to countries with the greatest disease burden and will be achieved by working with centres of excellence and existing networks.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2393-15-s2-s8

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 61 references

Cited by

See all 356

Metadata

Authors
Moxon, S. G., Ruysen, H., Kerber, K. J., Amouzou, A., Fournier, S., Grove, J., Moran, A. C., Vaz, L. M., Blencowe, H., Conroy, N., Gülmezoglu, A. M., Vogel, J. P., Rawlins, B., Sayed, R., Hill, K., Vivio, D., Qazi, S. A., Sitrin, D., Seale, A. C., Wall, S., Jacobs, T., Ruiz Peláez, J. G., Guenther, T., Coffey, P. S., Dawson, P., Marchant, T., Waiswa, P., Deorari, A., Enweronu-Laryea, C., Arifeen, S. E., Lee, A. C., Mathai, M., & Lawn, J. E.
Venue
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published
2015-09-11
Volume
15
Issue
S2
Pages
S8-S8
ISSN
1471-2393 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1867913521
Cited by
356
References
61
FWCI
28.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Count every newborn; a measurement improvement roadmap for coverage data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2393-15-s2-s8
The paper
Moxon, S. G., Ruysen, H., Kerber, K. J., Amouzou, A., Fournier, S., Grove, J., Moran, A. C., Vaz, L. M., Blencowe, H., Conroy, N., Gülmezoglu, A. M., Vogel, J. P., Rawlins, B., Sayed, R., Hill, K., Vivio, D., Qazi, S. A., Sitrin, D., Seale, A. C., . . . Lawn, J. E. (2015). Count every newborn; a measurement improvement roadmap for coverage data. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-15-s2-s8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.