Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39754232›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2025

Audit and feedback is an effective implementation strategy to increase fidelity to a multi-component labor induction protocol designed to reduce obstetric inequities.

Rebecca F Hamm, Sreya Pattipati, Lisa D Levine, Samuel Parry, Sindhu K Srinivas, Rinad S Beidas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rebecca F HammDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 2 Silverstein, PA, Philadelphia, 19104, USA. Rebecca.feldmanhamm@uphs.upenn.edu.
Sreya PattipatiDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 2 Silverstein, PA, Philadelphia, 19104, USA.
Lisa D LevineDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 2 Silverstein, PA, Philadelphia, 19104, USA.
Samuel ParryDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 2 Silverstein, PA, Philadelphia, 19104, USA.
Sindhu K SrinivasDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 2 Silverstein, PA, Philadelphia, 19104, USA.
Rinad S BeidasDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, IL, Chicago, USA.

Funding

A standardized labor induction protocol to reduce primary cesarean and racial disparities in labor outcomes: a prospective cohort studyK23HD102523 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HAMM, REBECCA FELDMAN · 2020 to 2023
$680k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD102523
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies have demonstrated that standardizing labor induction (IOL), often with the use of protocols, may reduce racial inequities in obstetrics. IOL protocols are complex, multi-component interventions. To target identified implementation barriers, audit and feedback (A&F) was selected as an implementation strategy. Here, we aimed to understand the acceptability and effect of A&F on fidelity to this complex intervention through quantitative and qualitative approaches.

methodsThis secondary analysis of a type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial (10/2018-12/2022) compared 2 years before (PRE) to 2 years after (POST) implementation of an IOL protocol at two sites. Fidelity to each of 8 specific protocol components was collected via chart review. During the POST period, unit-aggregated A&F reports were distributed via email every 3 months to site clinicians. Reports tracked fidelity to protocol components over time. For this analysis, we compared component fidelity PRE to POST-implementation. Additionally, during the POST period, we compared fidelity by month after each A&F (Month#1 v. Month#2/3) to evaluate the effect of A&F over time. Acceptability of A&F reports was evaluated using qualitative interviews.

results8509 labor inductions were included (PRE = 4214, POST = 4295). A&F reports were successfully distributed every 3 months for the 2-year POST period. PRE to POST-implementation, fidelity to 4 of the 8 components increased significantly (cervical Foley utilization, latent labor examination frequency, amniotomy timing, and intrauterine pressure catheter utilization), without change in the other 4 components. For 2 of those 4 components where improvement was noted, there was no difference in fidelity by month after A&F report; rather, there was sustained improvement across the POST-implementation period. On the other hand, for the remaining 2 components, fidelity peaked in the first month after each A&F report, with some decline in the following 2 months prior to the next A&F report. Qualitative analysis (n = 24) supported A&F acceptability, with A&F described as "motivating" and "helpful."

conclusionsA&F was an effective implementation strategy to promote fidelity to certain components of this labor induction protocol. With some decline in effect after the first month POST-A&F report, increased A&F frequency should be considered in future work targeting obstetric outcomes, as well as health inequities.

Indexed as

Audit and feedbackDosageFidelityImplementation strategyLabor induction

Identifiers

PMID39754232
PMCPMC11699657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.