Table 1. Characteristics of studies that describe care seeking for ill or suspected ill neonates.
| Primary Author, Year | Country | Rural/Urban | Study Design | Study Setting | Study Sample (n) | Neonates with Illness/Suspected Illness (n) | n Caregivers Who Sought Care by Type of Care Sought (%)a |
| Community Household Surveys | |||||||
| South Asia | |||||||
| Ahmed, 2001 [55] | Bangladesh | Rural | Cross-sectional community survey | 4 rural subdistricts, Chittagong and Jessore | 1511,511 | 740 | Any care: 644 (87%); From facility: 30 (4%); From provider: 614 (82%) |
| Bhandari, 2002 [56] | India | Urban | Cross-sectional community survey | Urban slum, Delhi | 21 | 9 | Any care: 2 (22%); From facility: 2 (22%) |
| Mohan, 2008 [57] | India | Rural | Cross-sectional community survey | Rural district, Rajasthan | 290 | 202 | Any care: 63 (31%); From facility: 24 (12%); From provider: 20 (10%) |
| Baqui, 2008 [58] b | Bangladesh | Rural | Cross-section community survey, nested in C-RCT | Sylhet district | Baseline: 5,577 | Baseline: 1,226 | Baseline: Any care: 498 (41%); From provider: 498 (41%) |
| Dongre, 2008 [59] | India | Rural | Cross-sectional community survey | Rural district, Wardha | 1160 | 321 | Any care: 134 (42%); From facility: 56 (17%) |
| Dongre, 2009 [60] | India | Urban | Cross-sectional community survey | Field practice area, Wardha | 72 | 27 | Any care: 27 (100%); From provider: 27 (100%) |
| Willis, 2009 [61] | India | Rural | Cross-sectional community survey | Rural block, Uttar Pradesh | 255 | 158 | Any care: 120 (76%); From provider: 62 (39%) |
| Chowdhury, 2011 [62] | Bangladesh | Rural | Cross-sectional community survey | Rural subdistrict, Matlab | 365 | 365 | Any care: 228 (62%); From facility: 2 (1%); From provider: 226 (62%) |
| Africa | |||||||
| Bazzano, 2008 [63] | Ghana | Rural | Cross-sectional community survey | 3 villages and 1 town, Kintampo District | 2,878 | 59 | Any care: 36 (61%); From provider: 36 (61%) |
| Manji, 2009 [31] | Tanzania | Urban/rural | Cross-sectional community survey | N/A | N/A | N/A | Any care: N/A (100%) |
| Waiswa, 2010 [64] 2 | Uganda | Rural | Cross-sectional health center survey | 16 health facilities | 64 | 6 | Any care: 6 (100%); From facility: 6 (100%) |
| Community Based Intervention Studies | |||||||
| South Asia | |||||||
| Manandhar, 2004 [26] | Nepal | Rural | C-RCT | 42 clusters, Makwanpur district | Control: 3,226 | Control: 1,320 | Control: Any care: 131 (10%); From facility: 131 (10%); |
| Intervention: 2,899 | Intervention: 919 | Intervention: Any care: 219 (24%); From facility: 219 (24%) | |||||
| Kumar, 2008 [28] | India | Rural | C-RCT | Household survey | Control: 988 | Control: 296 | Control: Any care: 254 (86%); From provider: 235 (80%) |
| ENC: 1,458 | ENC: 319 | ENC: Any care: 257 (81%); From provider: 230 (73%) | |||||
| ENCT: 1,039 | ENCT: 227 | ENCT: Any care: 204 (89%); From provider: 182 (80%) | |||||
| McPherson, 2008 [30] | Nepal | Rural | Before/after intervention | 106 rural villages, Siraha District | N/A | N/A | Before: Any care: N/A (78%); After: Any care: N/A (85%) |
| Dongre, 2009 [65] | India | Rural | Before/after intervention | 23 villages, Wardha | Before: 404 | Before: 246 | Before: Any care: 119 (48%); From facility: 119 (48%) |
| After: 393 | After: 147 | After: Any care: 114 (78%); From facility: 114 (78%) | |||||
| Azad, 2010 [27] | Bangladesh | Rural | C-RCT | Three rural districts, Bogra, Faridpur, Moulavibazar | Control: 3,227 | Control: 923 | Control: Any care: 244 (24%) |
| Intervention: 3,162 | Intervention: 866 | Intervention: Any care: 195 (23%) | |||||
| Darmstadt, 2010 [29] | Bangladesh | Rural | C-RCT | Rural subdistrict, Mirzapur | Control: 5,241 | Control baseline: 812 | Control baseline: Any care: 763 (94%); From provider: 222 (27%) |
| Control endpoint: 400 | Control endpoint: Any care: 384 (96%); From provider: 138 (35%) | ||||||
| Intervention: 4,616 | Intervention baseline: 733 | Intervention baseline: Any care: 682 (93%); From provider: 225 (31%) | |||||
| Intervention endpoint: 355 | Intervention endpoint: Any care: 344 (97%); From provider: 198 (56%) | ||||||
| Tripathy, 2010 [25] | India | Rural | C-RCT | 36 clusters, Jharkhand and Orissa | Control: 8,867 | Control: 2,388; | Control: Any care: 1050 (44%) |
| Intervention: 9,468 | Intervention: 1,739 | Intervention: Any care: 940 (54%) | |||||
| Facility-Based Studies | |||||||
| South Asia | |||||||
| Awasthi, 2006 [66] | India | Rural | Cross-sectional hospital survey | 2 public hospitals, Lucknow | 200 | 79 | Any care: 46 (56%); From provider: 46 (56%) |
| Awasthi, 2008 [67] | India | Urban | Prospective follow-up study | Urban city, Lucknow | 289 | 79 | Any care: 64 (81%); From provider: 64 (81%) |
| Awasthi, 2009 [23] | India | Urban | Before/after intervention | Rural village, Sarojininagor Block | 510 | Before: 242 | Before: Any care: 196 (81%); From provider: 111 (46%) |
| After 217 | After: Any care: 192 (89%) | ||||||
| Africa Region | |||||||
| Ogunlesi, 2011 [68] | Nigeria | Urban | Cross-sectional health center survey | 1 public hospital, Sagamu | 182 | 182 | Any care: 144 (79%); From facility: 144 (79%) |
a
Percentage reported as a proportion of all neonates with an illness or suspected illness reported by each study.
b
Data obtained via correspondence with corresponding author.
Abbreviations: C-RCT, cluster randomized controlled trial; CHW, community health worker; ENC, essential newborn care; ENCT, essential newborn care plus thermostat; N/A, not available.