Improving Neonatal Outcomes Through Global Professional Development

Collaborative healthcare education programmes for continuing professional education in low and middle-income countries: A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 65

BACKGROUND

Large discrepancies exist between standards of healthcare provision in high-income (HICs) and low and middle-income countries (LMICs). The root cause is often financial, resulting in poor infrastructure and under-resourced education and healthcare systems. Continuing professional education (CPE) programmes improve staff knowledge, skills, retention, and practice, but remain costly and rare in low-resource settings. One potential solution involves healthcare education collaborations between institutions in HICs and LMICs to provide culturally appropriate CPE in LMICs. To be effective, educational partnerships must address the challenges arising from differences in cultural norms, language, available technology and organisational structures within collaborating countries.

METHODS

Seven databases and other sources were systematically searched on 7 July 2020 for relevant studies. Citations, abstracts, and studies were screened and consensus was reached on which to include within the review. 54 studies were assessed regarding the type of educational programme involved, the nature of HIC/LMIC collaboration and quality of the study design.

RESULTS

Studies varied greatly regarding the types and numbers of healthcare professionals involved, pedagogical and delivery methods, and the ways in which collaboration was undertaken. Barriers and enablers of collaboration were identified and discussed. The key findings were: 1. The methodological quality of reporting in the studies was generally poor. 2. The way in which HIC/LMIC healthcare education collaboration is undertaken varies according to many factors, including what is to be delivered, the learner group, the context, and the resources available. 3. Western bias was a major barrier. 4. The key to developing successful collaborations was the quality, nature, and duration of the relationships between those involved.

CONCLUSION

This review provides insights into factors that underpin successful HIC/LMIC healthcare CPE collaborations and outlines inequities and quality issues in reporting.

Implementation of the Helping Babies Breathe Training Program: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) is a well-established neonatal resuscitation program designed to reduce newborn mortality in low-resource settings.

OBJECTIVES

In this literature review, we aim to identify challenges, knowledge gaps, and successes associated with each stage of HBB programming.

DATA SOURCES

Databases used in the systematic search included Medline, POPLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, African Index Medicus, Cochrane, and Index Medicus.

STUDY SELECTION

All articles related to HBB, in any language, were included. Article quality was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted if related to HBB, including its implementation, acquisition and retention of HBB knowledge and skills, changes in provider behavior and clinical care, or the impact on newborn outcomes.

RESULTS

Ninety-four articles met inclusion criteria. Barriers to HBB implementation include staff turnover and limited time or focus on training and practice. Researchers of several studies found HBB cost-effective. Posttraining decline in knowledge and skills can be prevented with low-dose high-frequency refresher trainings, on-the-job practice, or similar interventions. Impact of HBB training on provider clinical practices varies. Although not universal, researchers in multiple studies have shown a significant association of decreased perinatal mortality with HBB implementation.

LIMITATIONS

In addition to not conducting a gray literature search, articles relating only to Essential Care for Every Baby or Essential Care for Small Babies were not included in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Key challenges and requirements for success associated with each stage of HBB programming were identified. Despite challenges in obtaining neonatal mortality data, the program is widely believed to improve neonatal outcomes in resource-limited settings.