Summary of findings 3. Standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training (SFNRT) programme with team training compared with SFNRT for improving teamwork behaviour.
| Standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training (SFNRT) programme with team training compared with SFNRT for improving teamwork behaviour | ||||||
|
Patient or population: healthcare professionals involved in attending deliveries Settings: mannequin based study in an educational setting Intervention: SFNRT with team training Comparison: SFNRT | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| SFNRT | SFNRT with team training | |||||
| Teamwork behaviour ‐ any teamwork behaviour | The mean team behaviour ranged across control groups from 1.1 to 9.01 behaviours/minute | The mean team behaviour ranged across intervention groups from 3.42 to 11.56 behaviours/minute | MD 2.41 (1.72 to 3.11) | 130 participants (2 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 2 levels because of serious imprecision (evidence was available from only 2 studies from a single institution) and serious risk of bias (unclear allocation concealment and high risk for attrition bias in 1 study) |
| NRP performance scores | The mean NRP performance score in the control group was 71.5 | The mean NRP performance score in the intervention group was 72.9 | MD 1.40 (‐2.02 to 4.82) | 98 participants (1 study) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 2 levels because of serious imprecision (evidence was available from only 2 studies from a single institution) and serious risk of bias (unclear allocation concealment and high risk for attrition bias in 1 study) |
| Resuscitation duration | The mean resuscitation duration ranged across control groups from 609 to 634 seconds |
The mean resuscitation duration ranged across intervention groups from 465 to 479 seconds | MD ‐149.54 (‐214.73 to ‐84.34) | 130 participants (2 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 2 levels because of serious imprecision (evidence was available from only 2 studies from a single institution) and serious risk of bias (unclear allocation concealment and high risk for attrition bias in 1 study) |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; NRP: Neonatal Resuscitation Program; SFNRT: standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||