Incidence and Predictors of Mortality Among Newborns With Perinatal Asphyxia: A 4-Year Prospective Study of Newborns Delivered in Health Care Facilities in Enugu, South-East Nigeria

Fatalities from perinatal asphyxia remain high in developing countries, and continually assessing its risk factors will help improve outcomes in these settings. We explored how some identified risk factors predict mortality in asphyxiated newborns, to assist clinicians in prioritizing interventions. This was a 4-year prospective study conducted at the Enugu State University Teaching Hospital, Enugu, Nigeria. All newborns who met the study criteria that were admitted to this facility in this period were enrolled and monitored. Data collected were analysed with SPSS Version 18. A total of 161 newborns with perinatal asphyxia were enrolled into the study with an in-hospital incidence rate of 12.81 per 1000 birth and a case fatality rate of 18%. Overall, the APGAR scores were severe in 10%, moderate in 22%, mild to normal in 68%, whereas the SARNAT stages were III in 24%, II in 52%, and I in 25%. In terms of mortality, 66.7%, 22.2%, and 11.1% mortalities were, respectively, observed with SARNAT scores III, II, and I ( P  = .003), whereas the findings with APGAR were 31.2% (severe), 25.0% (moderate), 25.0% (mild), and 18.8% (normal) ( P  = .030). Fatality outcome was more correlated with SARNAT ( R  = .280; P  = .000) than APGAR ( R  = −.247; P  = .0125). The SARNAT score significantly differentiated between the degrees of asphyxia in newborns based on gestational age at delivery ( P  = .010), place of delivery ( P  = .032), and mode of delivery ( P  = .042). Finally, it was noted that newborns that were female ( P  = .007), or born outside the hospital ( P  = .010), or with oxygen saturations <60% ( P  = .001), or with heart rate <120 ( P  = .000), and those with respiratory rate <30 ( P  = .003), all have significantly higher likelihood of deaths from asphyxia. Therefore, predictors of neonatal mortality from perinatal asphyxia in our centre include being female and being born outside the hospital, as well as low oxygen saturations, heart rates, and respiratory rates at presentation

Negative Marking and the Student Physician–-A Descriptive Study of Nigerian Medical Schools

Background There is considerable debate about the two most commonly used scoring methods, namely, the formula scoring (popularly referred to as negative marking method in our environment) and number right scoring methods. Although the negative marking scoring system attempts to discourage students from guessing in order to increase test reliability and validity, there is the view that it is an excessive and unfair penalty that also increases anxiety. Feedback from students is part of the education process; thus, this study assessed the perception of medical students about negative marking method for multiple choice question (MCQ) examination formats and also the effect of gender and risk-taking behavior on scores obtained with this assessment method. Methods This was a prospective multicenter survey carried out among fifth year medical students in Enugu State University and the University of Nigeria. A structured questionnaire was administered to 175 medical students from the two schools, while a class test was administered to medical students from Enugu State University. Qualitative statistical methods including frequencies, percentages, and chi square were used to analyze categorical variables. Quantitative statistics using analysis of variance was used to analyze continuous variables. Results Inquiry into assessment format revealed that most of the respondents preferred MCQs (65.9%). One hundred and thirty students (74.3%) had an unfavorable perception of negative marking. Thirty-nine students (22.3%) agreed that negative marking reduces the tendency to guess and increases the validity of MCQs examination format in testing knowledge content of a subject compared to 108 (61.3%) who disagreed with this assertion (χ 2 = 23.0, df = 1, P = 0.000). The median score of the students who were not graded with negative marking was significantly higher than the score of the students graded with negative marking ( P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk-taking behavior between male and female students in their MCQ answering patterns with negative marking method ( P = 0.618). Conclusions In the assessment of students, it is more desirable to adopt fair penalties for discouraging guessing rather than excessive penalties for incorrect answers, which could intimidate students in negative marking schemes. There is no consensus on the penalty for an incorrect answer. Thus, there is a need for continued research into an effective and objective assessment tool that will ensure that the students’ final score in a test truly represents their level of knowledge