哪些 "护理人员 "算作新生儿危险征兆？东南亚国家的系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 2.3 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101766

{"title":"哪些 \"护理人员 \"算作新生儿危险征兆？东南亚国家的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To assess the prevalence of Knowledge of caregivers for neonatal danger signs. Registered in PROSPERO [CDR42022338605.]</p></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><p>PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched, Cochrane I<sup>2</sup> statistics for heterogeneity and Random effects model for reporting the results was used. Egger tests with funnel plots were used to investigate publication bias.</p></div><div><h3>Result</h3><p>Overall pooled prevalence of caregiver's knowledge towards IMNCI and other neonatal danger signs was 36.6 % (95 % CI = 28, 46.1) and 55.1 % [95 % CI = 46.9, 53] respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The knowledge of caregivers towards neonatal danger signs was inadequate.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221339842400263X/pdfft?md5=d4089ece49d35f7d5546cc86899ec2e8&pid=1-s2.0-S221339842400263X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What caregiver’ count as neonatal danger signs? A systematic review and meta-analysis of South East Asian countries\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101766\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To assess the prevalence of Knowledge of caregivers for neonatal danger signs. Registered in PROSPERO [CDR42022338605.]</p></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><p>PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched, Cochrane I<sup>2</sup> statistics for heterogeneity and Random effects model for reporting the results was used. Egger tests with funnel plots were used to investigate publication bias.</p></div><div><h3>Result</h3><p>Overall pooled prevalence of caregiver's knowledge towards IMNCI and other neonatal danger signs was 36.6 % (95 % CI = 28, 46.1) and 55.1 % [95 % CI = 46.9, 53] respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The knowledge of caregivers towards neonatal danger signs was inadequate.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221339842400263X/pdfft?md5=d4089ece49d35f7d5546cc86899ec2e8&pid=1-s2.0-S221339842400263X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221339842400263X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221339842400263X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估护理人员对新生儿危险征兆的了解程度。方法检索PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Google Scholar，使用Cochrane I2统计量分析异质性，并使用随机效应模型报告结果。结果护理人员对IMNCI和其他新生儿危险征兆的总体认知率分别为36.6%（95% CI = 28, 46.1）和55.1% [95% CI = 46.9, 53]。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

What caregiver’ count as neonatal danger signs? A systematic review and meta-analysis of South East Asian countries

Objective

To assess the prevalence of Knowledge of caregivers for neonatal danger signs. Registered in PROSPERO [CDR42022338605.]

Methodology

PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched, Cochrane I² statistics for heterogeneity and Random effects model for reporting the results was used. Egger tests with funnel plots were used to investigate publication bias.

Result

Overall pooled prevalence of caregiver's knowledge towards IMNCI and other neonatal danger signs was 36.6 % (95 % CI = 28, 46.1) and 55.1 % [95 % CI = 46.9, 53] respectively.

Conclusion

The knowledge of caregivers towards neonatal danger signs was inadequate.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

7.70%

发文量

218

审稿时长

66 days

期刊介绍： Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health (CEGH) is a multidisciplinary journal and it is published four times (March, June, September, December) a year. The mandate of CEGH is to promote articles on clinical epidemiology with focus on developing countries in the context of global health. We also accept articles from other countries. It publishes original research work across all disciplines of medicine and allied sciences, related to clinical epidemiology and global health. The journal publishes Original articles, Review articles, Evidence Summaries, Letters to the Editor. All articles published in CEGH are peer-reviewed and published online for immediate access and citation.