The objectives of this review were to evaluate the effect of home visits by trained community health workers (CHWs) to successfully identify newborns and young infants (up to 59 days of age) with serious illness and improve care seeking from a health facility. The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Abstracts of all articles were read by two authors independently and relevant articles selected. Data were extracted in a pretested questionnaire by two authors independently. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager software. A meta-analysis of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was carried out. Pooled estimates (risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) of the evaluated outcome measures were calculated by the generic inverse variance method. Seven articles were identified for inclusion in the review. None of them compared the diagnosis of serious illness in young infants by health workers to a 'gold standard' diagnosis. Three studies were available for evaluating the ability of CHWs to identify seriously ill young infants/signs of serious illness. These studies suggest that sensitivity to identify serious illness ranged from 33.3 to 90.5% and specificity from 75.61 to 98.4%. For the outcome of improved care seeking from a health facility, after pooling the data from six RCTs with 4760 subjects in the intervention and 4398 subjects in the control arm, there was a significant improvement in care seeking in the home visit arm (RR=1.35; 95% CI=1.15 to 1.58). Moderate quality evidence indicated that home visits by trained CHWs were associated with improved care-seeking for sick young infants from health facilities by appropriate health care providers in resource-limited settings. However, there is a lack of data regarding successful identification of serious illness. Evidence from validation studies supports the implementation of home visits by trained CHWs for improving outcomes in sick newborns and young infants in resource-limited areas. Further well-designed studies evaluating the effect of home visits by CHWs on successful identification of seriously ill newborns and young infants should include verification by a 'gold standard'.
The objective of this review is to assess the effect of home-based neonatal care provided by community health workers (CHWs) for preventing neonatal, infant and perinatal mortality in resource-limited settings with poor access to health facility-based care. The authors conducted a systematic review, including meta-analysis and meta-regression of controlled trials. The data sources included electronic databases, with a hand search of reviews, abstracts and proceedings of conferences to search for randomized, or cluster randomized, controlled trials evaluating the effect of home-based neonatal care provided by CHWs for preventing neonatal, infant and perinatal mortality. Among the included trials, all from South Asian countries, information on neonatal, infant and perinatal mortality was available in five, one and three trials, respectively. The intervention package comprised three components, namely, home visits during pregnancy (four trials), home-based preventive and/or curative neonatal care (all trials) and community mobilization efforts (four trials). Intervention was associated with a reduced risk of mortality during the neonatal (random effects model relative risk (RR) 0.75; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.61 to 0.92, P=0.005; I(2)=82.2%, P<0.001 for heterogeneity; high-quality evidence) and perinatal periods (random effects model RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, P=0.009; I(2)=79.6%, P=0.007 for heterogeneity; high-quality evidence). In one trial, a significant decline in infant mortality (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.94) was documented. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses suggested a greater effect with a higher baseline neonatal mortality rate. The authors concluded that home-based neonatal care is associated with a reduction in neonatal and perinatal mortality in South Asian settings with high neonatal-mortality rates and poor access to health facility-based care. Adoption of a policy of home-based neonatal care provided by CHWs is justified in such settings.
Reducing neonatal mortality rates in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) requires postnatal interventions to be delivered through an appropriately prepared and supported workforce. This review examines health workforce interventions that deliver integrated packages of postnatal care to improve neonatal outcomes in LMICs. We conducted a structured search of peer-reviewed articles published during 2003-2014 that investigated the delivery of postnatal interventions by formal and lay health workers. We selected 13 studies and analyzed them using a narrative synthesis methodology. This review observed a wide divergence among studies regarding the outcomes as well as the approaches and duration of workforce training and staff supervision. Except 4, all studies observed a significant reduction in neonatal mortality. On the other hand, teams of lay health workers appear to be more effective in improving neonatal outcomes. Further improvement in the performance of health care providers may require emphasis on workforce interventions such as competency assessment, the acquisition of appropriate skills, and supervisory guidelines. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity and limited number of studies do not allow us to arrive at definitive conclusions, and we recommend the need for the harmonization of future studies, with uniformity of outcome measures and cost analyses.
CONTEXT: Birth asphyxia contributes substantially to neonatal mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The effects of training birth attendants in neonatal resuscitation (NR) on mortality are limited by falloff of skills and knowledge over time and transference of learned skills into clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: This review examined acquisition and retention of NR knowledge and skills by birth attendants in LMICs and the effectiveness of interventions to improve them.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, Bireme, and African Index Medicus databases were searched. We reviewed Web pages and reports from non-peer-reviewed (or "gray") literature sources addressing NR training in LMICs.
STUDY SELECTION: Articles on acquisition and retention of NR knowledge and skills, and interventions to improve them, were limited to LMICs.
RESULTS: The initial search identified 767 articles, of which 45 met all inclusion criteria. Of these, 31 articles analyzed acquisition of knowledge and skills, and 19 analyzed retention. Most studies found high acquisition rates, although birth attendants struggled to learn bag-mask ventilation. Although significant falloff of knowledge and skills occurred after training, refresher training seemed to improve retention. Results of the gray literature analysis suggest that formal, structured practice sessions improve retention.
LIMITATIONS: This review did not analyze training's direct impact on mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge and skills falloff is a significant barrier to the success of NR training programs and possibly to reducing newborn mortality in LMICs. Refresher training and structured practice show significant promise. Additional research is needed to implement and assess retention improvement strategies in classroom and clinical settings.
BACKGROUND: While maternal, infant and under-five child mortality rates in developing countries have declined significantly in the past two to three decades, newborn mortality rates have reduced much more slowly. While it is recognised that almost half of the newborn deaths can be prevented by scaling up evidence-based available interventions (such as tetanus toxoid immunisation to mothers, clean and skilled care at delivery, newborn resuscitation, exclusive breastfeeding, clean umbilical cord care, and/or management of infections in newborns), many require facility-based and outreach services. It has also been stated that a significant proportion of these mortalities and morbidities could also be potentially addressed by developing community-based packaged interventions which should also be supplemented by developing and strengthening linkages with the local health systems. Some of the recent community-based studies of interventions targeting women of reproductive age have shown variable impacts on maternal outcomes and hence it is uncertain if these strategies have consistent benefit across the continuum of maternal and newborn care.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of community-based intervention packages in reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality; and improving neonatal outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (31 May 2014), World Bank's JOLIS (25 May 2014), BLDS at IDS and IDEAS database of unpublished working papers (25 May 2014), Google and Google Scholar (25 May 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA: All prospective randomised, cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effectiveness of community-based intervention packages in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidities, and improving neonatal outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS: The review included 26 cluster-randomised/quasi-randomised trials, covering a wide range of interventional packages, including two subsets from three trials. Assessment of risk of bias in these studies suggests concerns regarding insufficient information on sequence generation and regarding failure to adequately address incomplete outcome data, particularly from randomised controlled trials. We incorporated data from these trials using generic inverse variance method in which logarithms of risk ratio (RR) estimates were used along with the standard error of the logarithms of RR estimates.
Our review showed a possible effect in terms of a reduction in maternal mortality (RR 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.00, random-effects (11 studies, n = 167,311; random-effects, Tau² = 0.03, I² 20%). However, significant reduction was observed in maternal morbidity (average RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92; four studies, n = 138,290; random-effects, Tau² = 0.02, I² = 28%); neonatal mortality (average RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83; 21 studies, n = 302,646; random-effects, Tau² = 0.06, I² = 85%) including both early and late mortality; stillbirths (average RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91; 15 studies, n = 201,181; random-effects, Tau² = 0.03, I² = 66%); and perinatal mortality (average RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.86; 17 studies, n = 282,327; random-effects Tau² = 0.04, I² = 88%) as a consequence of implementation of community-based interventional care packages.
Community-based intervention packages also increased the uptake of tetanus immunisation by 5% (average RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; seven studies, n = 71,622; random-effects Tau² = 0.00, I² = 52%); use of clean delivery kits by 82% (average RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.10 to 3.02; four studies, n = 54,254; random-effects, Tau² = 0.23, I² = 90%); rates of institutional deliveries by 20% (average RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.39; 14 studies, n = 147,890; random-effects, Tau² = 0.05, I² = 80%); rates of early breastfeeding by 93% (average RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.55 to 2.39; 11 studies, n = 72,464; random-effects, Tau² = 0.14, I² = 98%), and healthcare seeking for neonatal morbidities by 42% (average RR 1.42; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.77, nine studies, n = 66,935, random-effects, Tau² = 0.09, I² = 92%). The review also showed a possible effect on increasing the uptake of iron/folic acid supplementation during pregnancy (average RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.99 to 2.17; six studies, n = 71,622; random-effects, Tau² = 0.26; I² = 99%).
It has no impact on improving referrals for maternal morbidities, healthcare seeking for maternal morbidities, iron/folate supplementation, attendance of skilled birth attendance on delivery, and other neonatal care-related outcomes. We did not find studies that reported the impact of community-based intervention package on improving exclusive breastfeeding rates at six months of age. We assessed our primary outcomes for publication bias and observed slight asymmetry on the funnel plot for maternal mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review offers encouraging evidence that community-based intervention packages reduce morbidity for women, mortality and morbidity for babies, and improves care-related outcomes particularly in low- and middle-income countries. It has highlighted the value of integrating maternal and newborn care in community settings through a range of interventions, which can be packaged effectively for delivery through a range of community health workers and health promotion groups. While the importance of skilled delivery and facility-based services for maternal and newborn care cannot be denied, there is sufficient evidence to scale up community-based care through packages which can be delivered by a range of community-based workers.
Every year, nearly 1 million babies succumb to birth asphyxia (BA) within the Asia-Pacific region. The present study sought to determine whether educational interventions containing some element of resuscitation training would decrease the relative risk (RR) of neonatal mortality attributable to BA in low-resource communities. We systematically reviewed 3 electronic databases and identified 14 relevant reports. For community deliveries, providing traditional birth attendants (TBAs) with neonatal resuscitation training modestly reduced the RR in 3 of 4 studies. For institutional deliveries, training a range of clinical staff clearly reduced the RR within 2 of 8 studies. When resuscitation-specific training was directed to community and institutional health care workers, a slight benefit was observed in 1 of 2 studies. Specific training in neonatal resuscitation appears most effective when provided to TBAs (specifically, those presented with ongoing opportunities to review and update their skills), but this particular intervention alone may not appreciably reduce mortality.
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits for all pregnant women. Almost half of pregnant women worldwide, and especially in developing countries do not receive this amount of care. Poor attendance of ANC is associated with delivery of low birthweight babies and more neonatal deaths. ANC may include education on nutrition, potential problems with pregnancy or childbirth, child care and prevention or detection of disease during pregnancy.This review focused on community-based interventions and health systems-related interventions.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of health system and community interventions for improving coverage of antenatal care and other perinatal health outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Trials of any interventions to improve ANC coverage were eligible for inclusion. Trials were also eligible if they targeted specific and related outcomes, such as maternal or perinatal death, but also reported ANC coverage.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 trials involving approximately 400,000 women. Some trials tested community-based interventions to improve uptake of antenatal care (media campaigns, education or financial incentives for pregnant women), while other trials looked at health systems interventions (home visits for pregnant women or equipment for clinics). Most trials took place in low- and middle-income countries, and 29 of the 34 trials used a cluster-randomised design. We assessed 30 of the 34 trials as of low or unclear overall risk of bias. Comparison 1: One intervention versus no interventionWe found marginal improvements in ANC coverage of at least four visits (average odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.22; participants = 45,022; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 52%; high quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis with a more conservative intra-cluster correlation co-efficient (ICC) gave similar marginal results. Excluding one study at high risk of bias shifted the marginal pooled estimate towards no effect. There was no effect on pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.08; participants = 114,930; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; studies = 15; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 58%; moderate quality evidence) or low birthweight (average OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 5%; high quality evidence). Single interventions led to marginal improvements in the number of women who delivered in health facilities (average OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; high quality evidence), and in the proportion of women who had at least one ANC visit (average OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.79; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.24; I² = 76%; moderate quality evidence). Results for ANC coverage (at least four and at least one visit) and for perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Single interventions did not improve the proportion of women receiving tetanus protection (average OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; studies = 8; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 57%). No study reported onintermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria. Comparison 2: Two or more interventions versus no interventionWe found no improvements in ANC coverage of four or more visits (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.21; participants = 7840; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.10; I² = 48%; low quality evidence) or pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.26; participants = 13,756; studies = three; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). However, combined interventions led to improvements in ANC coverage of at least one visit (average OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.17; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.06; I² = 83%; moderate quality evidence) and low birthweight (average OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; studies = two; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). Meta-analyses for both ANC coverage four or more visits and perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Combined interventions improved the proportion of women who had tetanus protection (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.87; studies = 3; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 33%). No trial in this comparison reported on intermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria. Comparison 3: Two interventions compared head to head. No trials found. Comparison 4: One intervention versus a combination of interventionsThere was no difference in ANC coverage (four or more visits and at least one visit), pregnancy-related deaths, deliveries in a health facility or perinatal mortality. No trials in this comparison reported on low birthweight orintermittent prophylactic treatment of malaria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice - Single interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit and four or more visits) and deliveries in health facilities. Combined interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit), reduce perinatal mortality and reduce the occurrence of low birthweight. The effects of the interventions are unrelated to whether they are community or health system interventions. Implications for research - More details should be provided in reporting numbers of events, group totals and the ICCs used to adjust for cluster effects. Outcomes should be reported uniformly so that they are comparable to commonly-used population indicators. We recommend further cluster-RCTs of pregnant women and women in their reproductive years, using combinations of interventions and looking at outcomes that are important to pregnant women, such as maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, alongside the explanatory outcomes along the pathway of care: ANC coverage, the services provided during ANC and deliveries in health facilities.
Community health workers (CHWs) are increasingly recognized as an integral component of the health workforce needed to achieve public health goals in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Many factors influence CHW performance. A systematic review was conducted to identify intervention design related factors influencing performance of CHWs. We systematically searched six databases for quantitative and qualitative studies that included CHWs working in promotional, preventive or curative primary health services in LMICs. One hundred and forty studies met the inclusion criteria, were quality assessed and double read to extract data relevant to the design of CHW programmes. A preliminary framework containing factors influencing CHW performance and characteristics of CHW performance (such as motivation and competencies) guided the literature search and review.A mix of financial and non-financial incentives, predictable for the CHWs, was found to be an effective strategy to enhance performance, especially of those CHWs with multiple tasks. Performance-based financial incentives sometimes resulted in neglect of unpaid tasks. Intervention designs which involved frequent supervision and continuous training led to better CHW performance in certain settings. Supervision and training were often mentioned as facilitating factors, but few studies tested which approach worked best or how these were best implemented. Embedment of CHWs in community and health systems was found to diminish workload and increase CHW credibility. Clearly defined CHW roles and introduction of clear processes for communication among different levels of the health system could strengthen CHW performance.When designing community-based health programmes, factors that increased CHW performance in comparable settings should be taken into account. Additional intervention research to develop a better evidence base for the most effective training and supervision mechanisms and qualitative research to inform policymakers in development of CHW interventions are needed.
BACKGROUND: Trauma systems in resource-rich countries have decreased mortality for trauma patients through centralizing resources and standardizing treatment. Rapid industrialization and urbanization have increased the demand for formalized emergency medical services and trauma services (EMS and TS) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This systematic review examines initiatives to develop EMS and TS systems in LMICs to inform the development of comprehensive prehospital care systems in resource-poor settings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: EMS and TS system development publications were identified using MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus databases. Articles addressing subspecialty skill sets, public policy, or physicians were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts in a hierarchical manner.
RESULTS: A total of 12 publications met inclusion criteria, and 10 unique LMIC EMS and TS programs were identified. Common initiatives included the integration of existing EMS and TS services and provision of standardized training and formalized certification processes for prehospital care providers, as well as the construction of a conceptual framework for system development through the public health model.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no single model of EMS and TS systems, and successful programs are heterogeneous across regions. Successful EMS and TS systems share common characteristics. A predevelopment needs assessment is critical in identifying existing EMS and TS resources as a foundation for further development. Implementation requires coordination of preexisting resources with cost-effective initiatives that involve local stakeholders. High-impact priority areas are identified to focus improvements. Financial stresses and mismatching of resources in LMICs are common and are more commonly encountered when implementing a high-income model EMS and TS in an LMIC. Preimplementation and postimplementation evaluations can determine the efficacy of initiatives to strengthen EMS and TS systems.
BACKGROUND: A variety of in-service emergency care training courses are currently being promoted as a strategy to improve the quality of care provided to seriously ill newborns and children in low-income countries. Most courses have been developed in high-income countries. However, whether these courses improve the ability of health professionals to provide appropriate care in low-income countries remains unclear. This is the first update of the original review.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of in-service emergency care training on health professionals' treatment of seriously ill newborns and children in low-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, part of The Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com); MEDLINE, Ovid SP; EMBASE, Ovid SP; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge/Science and eight other databases. We performed database searches in February 2015. We also searched clinical trial registries, websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. We applied no date, language or publication status restrictions when conducting the searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted-time-series studies that compared the effects of in-service emergency care training versus usual care were eligible for inclusion. We included only hospital-based studies and excluded community-based studies. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias and confidence in effect estimates (certainty of evidence) for each outcome using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We described results and presented them in GRADE tables.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new studies in this update. Two randomised trials (which were included in the original review) met the review eligibility criteria. In the first trial, newborn resuscitation training compared with usual care improved provider performance of appropriate resuscitation (trained 66% vs usual care 27%, risk ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75 to 3.42; moderate certainty evidence) and reduced inappropriate resuscitation (trained mean 0.53 vs usual care 0.92, mean difference 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.66; moderate certainty evidence). Effect on neonatal mortality was inconclusive (trained 28% vs usual care 25%, risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.48; N = 27 deaths; low certainty evidence). Findings from the second trial suggest that essential newborn care training compared with usual care probably slightly improves delivery room newborn care practices (assessment of breathing, preparedness for resuscitation) (moderate certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In-service neonatal emergency care courses probably improve health professionals' treatment of seriously ill babies in the short term. Further multi-centre randomised trials evaluating the effects of in-service emergency care training on long-term outcomes (health professional practice and patient outcomes) are needed.
The objectives of this review were to evaluate the effect of home visits by trained community health workers (CHWs) to successfully identify newborns and young infants (up to 59 days of age) with serious illness and improve care seeking from a health facility. The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Abstracts of all articles were read by two authors independently and relevant articles selected. Data were extracted in a pretested questionnaire by two authors independently. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager software. A meta-analysis of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was carried out. Pooled estimates (risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) of the evaluated outcome measures were calculated by the generic inverse variance method. Seven articles were identified for inclusion in the review. None of them compared the diagnosis of serious illness in young infants by health workers to a 'gold standard' diagnosis. Three studies were available for evaluating the ability of CHWs to identify seriously ill young infants/signs of serious illness. These studies suggest that sensitivity to identify serious illness ranged from 33.3 to 90.5% and specificity from 75.61 to 98.4%. For the outcome of improved care seeking from a health facility, after pooling the data from six RCTs with 4760 subjects in the intervention and 4398 subjects in the control arm, there was a significant improvement in care seeking in the home visit arm (RR=1.35; 95% CI=1.15 to 1.58). Moderate quality evidence indicated that home visits by trained CHWs were associated with improved care-seeking for sick young infants from health facilities by appropriate health care providers in resource-limited settings. However, there is a lack of data regarding successful identification of serious illness. Evidence from validation studies supports the implementation of home visits by trained CHWs for improving outcomes in sick newborns and young infants in resource-limited areas. Further well-designed studies evaluating the effect of home visits by CHWs on successful identification of seriously ill newborns and young infants should include verification by a 'gold standard'.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
