Citation | Country (WHO Region)* | N | Facility Infrastructure Level | Prospective vs Retrospective | Population Based vs Sample | Denominator description | % Utilizing Facility |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Awasthi, 2009 [8] | India (SEAR) | 510 enrolled in baseline facility based survey | Public hospital with doctors and basic diagnostic and treatment facilities | Prospective | Sample: 2 urban public hospitals in Lucknow | Enrolled sick newborns who came to the facility | 80% utilized the facilities in baseline assessment |
Bari, 2006 [15] | Bangladesh (SEAR) | 2,290 newborns in comparison sample | Private hospital with specialized pediatric care | Prospective | Sample: Mirzapur subdistrict, Tangail district | Sick newborns who utilized the local hospital | 18-23% utilized referral hospital |
Dongre 2009 [16] | India (SEAR) | 503 mothers of babies < 12 months | Public or private hospitals attended by doctors | Prospective | Sample: Wardha district, Maharashtra | Newborns with clinical danger signs presenting to local hospitals | 48% utilized local hospital in needs assessment phase |
Kumar, 2008 [17] | India (SEAR) | 1079 live births in "control" arm | Primary health centers with trained physicians | Prospective | Sample: Shivgarh district, Uttar Pradesh | 296 newborns with "any" illness | 16.7% were attended by a doctor or nurse/midwife |
Manandhar, 2004 [18] | Nepal (SEAR) | 3,226 live births in control areas | Not specified | Prospective | Sample: Makwanpur district | Neonates with signs of illness (cough, fever, diarrhea) | 10% utilized a health facility for illness |
McPherson, 2006 [19] | Nepal (SEAR) | Number in baseline survey population not specified | Not specified | Household survey before/after community intervention | Sample: Siraha District | Not specified | 11-17% utilized postnatal care services |