Back

Maternal Knowledge and Education-Priority Gaps in Preterm Infant Care in the Gaza Strip, Palestine: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abdeljawad, M.; Najim, A.; Abdeljawad, H.; Rodgers, J.; Almukbel, R.; Mokbel, K.

2026-05-15 pediatrics
10.64898/2026.05.12.26353051 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose: To assess maternal knowledge of preterm infant care in Gaza and identify clinically actionable education priorities in a resource-constrained neonatal setting. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 170 mothers of premature infants admitted to neonatal departments in four government hospitals. A 30-item interviewer-administered questionnaire assessed knowledge across thermoregulation, feeding, phototherapy, and infection and skin care. Bivariate analyses, ordinal logistic regression, adjusted predicted probabilities, and exploratory clinical-priority gap analyses were conducted. Results: Overall knowledge was moderate, with a mean score of 64.1% (SD 22.3). Knowledge was classified as poor in 53 mothers (31.2%), good in 41 (24.1%), and excellent in 76 (44.7%). Knowledge differed across domains (p<0.001), with feeding weakest (53.6%) and infection and skin care strongest (73.8%). Not receiving specialist premature-care antenatal follow-up was independently associated with lower odds of higher knowledge (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15-0.80, p=0.013). Mothers without specialist follow-up also had a higher adjusted probability of poor knowledge than those who received it (37.4% vs 18.1%) and more clinical-priority gaps (IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04-1.57, p=0.019). Among the 10 lowest-scoring items, 110 mothers (64.7%) had five or more gaps. Conclusion: Maternal knowledge was uneven, with clinically important gaps in practical care domains. Domain-specific education checklists may strengthen antenatal counselling, bedside teaching, and discharge preparation in similar constrained neonatal settings.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.