Does the Helping Babies Breathe Programme impact on neonatal resuscitation care practices? Results from systematic review and meta-analysis

“帮助婴儿呼吸计划”是否对新生儿复苏护理实践产生影响?系统评价和荟萃分析的结果

阅读:1

Abstract

AIM: This paper examines the change in neonatal resuscitation practices after the implementation of the Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) programme. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out on studies reporting the impact of HBB programmes among the literature found in Medline, POPLINE, LILACS, African Index Medicus, Cochrane, Web of Science and Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region database. We selected clinical trials with randomised control, quasi-experimental and cross-sectional designs. We used a data extraction tool to extract information on intervention and outcome reporting. We carried out a meta-analysis of the extracted data on the neonatal resuscitation practices following HBB programme using Review Manager. RESULTS: Four studies that reported on neonatal resuscitation practices before and after the implementation of the HBB programme were identified. The pooled results showed no changes in the use of stimulation (RR-0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-1.42), suctioning (RR-0.48; 95% CI, 0.18-1.27) and bag-and-mask ventilation (RR-0.93; 95% CI, 0.47-1.83) after HBB training. The proportion of babies receiving bag-and-mask ventilation within the Golden Minute of birth increased by more than 2.5 times (RR-2.67; 95% CI, 2.17-3.28). CONCLUSION: The bag-and-mask ventilation within Golden minute has improved following the HBB programme. Implementation of HBB training improves timely initiation of bag-and-mask ventilation within one minute of birth.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。