You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Paediatrics
Original research
Measuring the duration of kangaroo mother care for neonates: a scoping review
  1. Victor Spector Tumukunde1,2,
  2. Eva Loucaides3,
  3. Melissa M Medvedev3,4,
  4. Moffat Nyirenda1,2,
  5. Joy Lawn1,3,
  6. Cally J Tann2,5
  1. 1Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  2. 2Medical Research Council/Uganda Virus Research Institute and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Uganda Research Unit, Entebbe, Uganda
  3. 3Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive, & Child Health Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  4. 4Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  5. 5Department of Neonatal Medicine, University College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Victor Spector Tumukunde; Victor.tumukunde{at}mrcuganda.org

Abstract

Objectives Kangaroo mother care (KMC) is high impact for survival of low birth weight neonates, but there are few rigorous evaluations of duration required for impact. We conducted a scoping review of KMC duration measurement methods and assessed their validation.

Design Scoping review in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for conducting scoping review.

Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, African Index Medicus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry, Medrxiv and OpenGrey were searched through November 2022.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Publications with primary data on KMC duration were included. We excluded short procedural skin-to-skin care studies.

Data extraction and synthesis Selection and data abstraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. A data charting form based on the variables of interest was used to abstract data.

Results A total of 213 publications were included, of which 54 (25%) documented a method of measuring KMC duration. Only 20 publications (9%) provided a detailed description of the duration measurement method, and none reported validity. Most studies used caregiver reports (29, 54%) or healthcare worker observations (17, 31%). Other methods included independent observers and electronic monitoring devices.

Conclusion Only 9% of KMC studies reporting duration documented the measurement method applied, and no studies were found with documented validation of duration measurement methods. Accurate and comparable data on the dose response of KMC will require duration measurement methods to be validated against a gold standard such as an independent observer.

  • NEONATOLOGY
  • PERINATOLOGY
  • PUBLIC HEALTH

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079579

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • JL and CJT are joint senior authors.

    • Contributors VST conceptualised the study, wrote the protocol, analysed and interpreted the data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. VST, EL and CJT selected the publications and abstracted the data. MMM, CJT, MN and JL interpreted the data and critically revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version. VST is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor.

    • Funding This study was supported by a grant from the Joint Global Health Trials scheme of the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (MR/S004971/1) awarded to JEL. A grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (K23HD092611) awarded to MMM supported her work on this study.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.