Cited by 38Health Policy Implementation ScienceGlobal Maternal and Child HealthMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Process evaluation of a knowledge translation intervention using facilitation of local stakeholder groups to improve neonatal survival in the Quang Ninh province, Vietnam

Open access
Eriksson, Leif, Huy, Tran Q., Duc, Duong M., Ekholm Selling, Katarina, Hoa, Dinh P., Thuy, Nguyen T., Nga, Nguyen T., Persson, Lars-Åke +1 more·2016·Trials

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Annually, 2.8 million neonatal deaths occur worldwide, despite the fact that three-quarters of them could be prevented if available evidence-based interventions were used. Facilitation of community groups has been recognized as a promising method to translate knowledge into practice. In northern Vietnam, the Neonatal Health - Knowledge Into Practice trial evaluated facilitation of community groups (2008-2011) and succeeded in reducing the neonatal mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95 % confidence interval 0.30-0.89). The aim of this paper is to report on the process (implementation and mechanism of impact) of this intervention. METHODS: Process data were excerpted from diary information from meetings with facilitators and intervention groups, and from supervisor records of monthly meetings with facilitators. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. An evaluation including attributes and skills of facilitators (e.g., group management, communication, and commitment) was performed at the end of the intervention using a six-item instrument. Odds ratios were analyzed, adjusted for cluster randomization using general linear mixed models. RESULTS: To ensure eight active facilitators over 3 years, 11 Women's Union representatives were recruited and trained. Of the 44 intervention groups, composed of health staff and commune stakeholders, 43 completed their activities until the end of the study. In total, 95 % (n = 1508) of the intended monthly meetings with an intervention group and a facilitator were conducted. The overall attendance of intervention group members was 86 %. The groups identified 32 unique problems and implemented 39 unique actions. The identified problems targeted health issues concerning both women and neonates. Actions implemented were mainly communication activities. Communes supported by a group with a facilitator who was rated high on attributes and skills (n = 27) had lower odds of neonatal mortality (odds ratio, 0.37; 95 % confidence interval, 0.19-0.73) than control communes (n = 46). CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation identified several factors that might have influenced the outcomes of the trial: continuity of intervention groups' work, adequate attributes and skills of facilitators, and targeting problems along a continuum of care. Such factors are important to consider in scaling-up efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN44599712 .

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/s13063-015-1141-z

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • Studies that report process evaluation alongside effectiveness data demonstrate the importance of having the right individuals in the role with the right level of skills, knowledge, support and mentoring.

    “Studies that report process evaluation alongside effectiveness data demonstrate the importance of having the right individuals in the role with the right level of skills, knowledge, support and mentoring [59, 60].”

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

Cited by

Authors
Eriksson, L., Huy, T. Q., Duc, D. M., Ekholm Selling, K., Hoa, D. P., Thuy, N. T., Nga, N. T., Persson, L.-Å., & Wallin, L.
Affiliations
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Ministry of Health (VN)
  • Dalarna University (SE)
Corresponding author
Eriksson, Leif
Venue
Trials
Published
2016-01-13
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
23-23
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W188444443
Cited by
38
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
6.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Styrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
  • Vetenskapsrådet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
neonatal mortality, knowledge translation, stakeholder engagement, women's unions, facilitation skills, implementation process, continuum of care, scale-up, Quang Ninh province
MeSH terms
Continuity of Patient Care, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant Mortality, Infant, Newborn, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Social Facilitation, Vietnam, Program Evaluation, Perinatal Care, Translational Research, Biomedical

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