ArticleReproductive health2021
The development of the WHO Labour Care Guide: an international survey of maternity care providers.
Article in Reproductive health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of the WHO Labour Care Guide on cesarean section in India: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial.Nature medicine · 2024Trial
- Midwives' experiences and perceptions on the use of the Labour Care Guide: A qualitative study.Curationis · 2026Article
- Article
- Developing a Co-Designed Strategy to Improve Labor Monitoring and Management in India Using the World Health Organization Labour Care Guide: A Mixed-Methods Formative Study.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2026Article
- Acceptability of the WHO labor care guide among midwives in Tanzania: an exploratory qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Promoting respectful maternity care with the WHO labor care guide and the checklist mnemonic "COPE": A quality improvement project.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- Effects of World Health Organization labor care guide on maternal and neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2025Article
- Psychometric properties of the questionnaire for assessing the childbirth experience in a Chinese sample of postpartum women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of dissemination strategies of maternal clinical guidelines: A narrative review.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Reducing primary cesarean delivery rate through implementation of a smart intrapartum surveillance system.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Global research priorities related to the World Health Organization Labour Care Guide: results of a global consultation.Reproductive health · 2023Article
- Impact of WHO Labor Care Guide on reducing cesarean sections at a tertiary center: an open-label randomized controlled trial.AJOG global reports · 2022Article
- Learning from maternal deaths due to uterine rupture: review of cases from peri-urban Uganda.AJOG global reports · 2022Article
- Need for more evidence in the prevention and management of perinatal asphyxia and neonatal encephalopathy in low and middle-income countries: A call for action.Seminars in fetal & neonatal medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe partograph is the most commonly used labour monitoring tool in the world. However, it has been used incorrectly or inconsistently in many settings. In 2018, a WHO expert group reviewed and revised the design of the partograph in light of emerging evidence, and they developed the first version of the Labour Care Guide (LCG). The objective of this study was to explore opinions of skilled health personnel on the first version of the WHO Labour Care Guide.
methodsSkilled health personnel (including obstetricians, midwives and general practitioners) of any gender from Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America were identified through a large global research network. Country coordinators from the network invited 5 to 10 mid-level and senior skilled health personnel who had worked in labour wards anytime in the last 5 years. A self-administered, anonymous, structured, online questionnaire including closed and open-ended questions was designed to assess the clarity, relevance, appropriateness of the frequency of recording, and the completeness of the sections and variables on the LCG.
resultsA total of 110 participants from 23 countries completed the survey between December 2018 and January 2019. Variables included in the LCG were generally considered clear, relevant and to have been recorded at the appropriate frequency. Most sections of the LCG were considered complete. Participants agreed or strongly agreed with the overall design, structure of the LCG, and the usefulness of reference thresholds to trigger further assessment and actions. They also agreed that LCG could potentially have a positive impact on clinical decision-making and respectful maternity care. Participants disagreed with the value of some variables, including coping, urine, and neonatal status.
conclusionsFuture end-users of WHO Labour Care Guide considered the variables to be clear, relevant and appropriate, and, with minor improvements, to have the potential to positively impact clinical decision-making and respectful maternity care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.