Abstract
Objective To describe the effectiveness of the Neonatal Life Support (NLS) course in terms of attendees’ knowledge, perceived self-efficacy, and clinical applicability.
Methods We conducted an electronic survey of NLS course attendees (NLS+ group). The survey had six themes: i) demographic characteristics; ii) NLS clinical applicability; iii) attendee’s perceived proficiency at neonatal resuscitation; iv) attendee’s perceived experience of fluency, security, and quality of care during neonatal resuscitation; v) knowledge (multiple-choice questions); and vi) perceived personal and professional impact of the NLS course. A control group (NLS−) was recruited via our regional perinatal network. The survey data were analysed anonymously. Multiple linear regression analysis examined the following: NLS course, job tenure, maternity level, and profession.
Results The survey completion rate was 62% (200/323) for the NLS+ group. Among participants, 84% had participated in neonatal resuscitation since their course. The scores for positive perceived experience for neonatal resuscitation (fluency, security, and quality of care delivered) were higher in the NLS+ group than the NLS− group (p < 0.006). After adjustment, the independent factors associated with a higher positive perceived experience were the NLS course, work in tertiary level maternity ward, and job tenure > 5 years. The multiple-choice questions score (n = 10) was 8.2 ± 1.3 (NLS+) vs. 6.7 ± 1.5 (NLS−) (p < 0.0001). NLS course, medical degree, and work in a tertiary level maternity ward were independently associated with higher knowledge scores.
Conclusion The NLS course was associated with better knowledge of, and a positive perceived experience regarding, neonatal resuscitation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding received for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB was not required for our study. We conducted an anonymous self-assessment survey.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data from this study are not available.
