Cited by 38Global Maternal and Child HealthMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareHealth and Conflict Studies

Essential newborn care practice at four primary health facilities in conflict affected areas of Bossaso, Somalia: a cross-sectional study

Open access
Amsalu, Ribka, Morris, Catherine N., Chukwumalu, Kingsley, Hynes, Michelle, Janjua, Shehryar, Couture, Alexia, Summers, Aimee, Cannon, Amy +2 more·2019·Conflict and Health

Abstract

Newborn mortality is increasingly concentrated in contexts of conflict and political instability. However, there are limited guidelines and data on the availability and quality of newborn care in conflict settings. In 2016, an interagency collaboration developed the Newborn Health in Humanitarian Settings Field Guide- Interim version (Field Guide) . In this study, we sought to understand the baseline availability and quality of essential newborn care in Bossaso, Somalia as part of an investigation to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of the Field Guide in improving newborn care in humanitarian settings. A cross-sectional study was conducted at four purposely selected health facilities serving internally displaced persons affected by conflict in Bossaso. Essential newborn care practice and patient experience with childbirth care received at the facilities were assessed via observation of clinical practice during childbirth and the immediate postnatal period, and through postnatal interviews of mothers. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were employed to summarize and examine variation by health facility. Of the 332 pregnant women approached, 253 (76.2%) consented and were enrolled. 97.2% (95% CI: 94.4, 98.9) had livebirths and 2.8% (95% CI: 1.1, 5.6) had stillbirths. The early newborn mortality was 1.7% (95% CI: 0.3, 4.8). Nearly all [95.7%, (95% CI: 92.4, 97.8)] births were attended by skilled health worker. Similarly, 98.0% (95% CI: 95.3, 99.3) of newborns received immediate drying, and 99.2% (95% CI: 97.1, 99.9) had delayed bathing. Few [8.6%, (95% CI: 5.4, 12.9)] received immediate skin-to-skin contact and the practice varied significantly by facility ( p < 0.001). One-third of newborns [30.1%, (95% CI: 24.4, 36.2)] received early initiation of breastfeeding and there was significant variation by facility ( p < 0.001). While almost all [99.2%, (95% CI: 97.2, 100)] service providers wore gloves while attending births, handwashing was not as common [20.2%, (95% CI: 15.4, 25.6)] and varied by facility ( p < 0.001). Nearly all [92%, (95% CI: 86.9, 95.5)] mothers were either very happy or happy with the childbirth care received at the facility. Essential newborn care interventions were not universally available. Quality of care varied by health facility and type of intervention. Training and supervision using the Field Guide could improve newborn outcomes.

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/s13031-019-0202-4

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [17]WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF Pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum and newborn care: a guide for essential practice (PCPNC) 2015 3 Geneva World Health Organization 26561684
  2. [24]WHO recommendations on postnatal care of the mother and newborn. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/97603/1/9789241506649_eng.pdf. 24624481

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amsalu, R., Morris, C. N., Chukwumalu, K., Hynes, M., Janjua, S., Couture, A., Summers, A., Cannon, A., Hulland, E. N., & Baunach, S.
Affiliations
  • Save the Children (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Amsalu, Ribka
Venue
Conflict and Health
Published
2019-06-13
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
27-27
ISSN
1752-1505 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2951239960
Cited by
38
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
6.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conflict and Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
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
essential newborn care, conflict-affected settings, humanitarian settings, internally displaced persons, neonatal mortality, skilled birth attendance, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding initiation, newborn bathing, hand hygiene, neonatal resuscitation, neonatal infection prevention, primary health centers, maternal and newborn health services, stillbirth, handwashing behavior

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