Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40770617›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025

Facilitators and barriers to implementing and sustaining facility-based stillbirth reviews in India: a qualitative study.

Yebeen Ysabelle Boo, Rupanjali Deka, Aliki Christou, Uchenna Gwacham-Anisiobi, Jenny Gong, Monica Lakhanpaul, Jennifer J Kurinczuk, Manisha Nair

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

8 authors.

Yebeen Ysabelle BooNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. yebeen.ysabelle.boo@oxon.org.
Rupanjali DekaSrimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences, Assam, India.
Aliki ChristouInstitute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Uchenna Gwacham-AnisiobiNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jenny GongNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Monica LakhanpaulPopulation, Policy and Practice Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jennifer J KurinczukNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Manisha NairNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 1294322NMedical Research Council MR/W029294/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStillbirth reviews provide opportunities to improve the quality of maternity care and reduce preventable stillbirths. In India, facility-based stillbirth reviews have been part of the National Health Mission since 2016, yet their implementation has been inconsistent. This study aimed to identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing and sustaining facility-based stillbirth reviews as reported by Indian healthcare professionals.

methodsA qualitative study was conducted between August to October 2023 using focus group discussions with purposively sampled healthcare professionals from eight hospitals in India, which included those that conduct stillbirth reviews and those that do not. Discussions were analysed using the Framework Method. We applied the capability, opportunity, motivation, and behaviour (COM-B) model to identify facilitators and barriers and used the Behaviour Change Wheel to link these to intervention functions.

resultsImportant factors related to capability included record-keeping skills, understanding the importance of documentation, and training on how to conduct effective stillbirth reviews. Under social opportunity, key facilitators were creating a blame-free environment for discussion, ensuring participation from all levels of the health system, and addressing cultural perceptions of stillbirth and post-mortem examinations. Facilitators related to physical opportunity included the presence of clear stillbirth definitions and the collection of minimum stillbirth data. Reflective motivation, specifically, the beliefs in the benefits of stillbirth reviews for both the facility and the community, was a notable factor in the willingness of healthcare professionals to implement and sustain stillbirth reviews despite system-level barriers.

conclusionsStrengthening the implementation and sustainability of facility-based stillbirth reviews in India requires targeted, practical interventions. Creating a blame-free environment can be supported through workshops emphasising the learning purpose of reviews, having neutral facilitators to guide discussions, and asking participants to sign a code of conduct ‘charter’ pledging their commitment to providing a safe environment for all panel members and the community, incorporating this into local stillbirth review guidelines. Clear national guidelines on stillbirth definitions, combined with training on accurate data collection and reporting, will improve consistency. Regular training and mentoring should focus on building healthcare professionals’ capability in record-keeping and effective review practices. Strengthening information technology infrastructure and providing protected time for reviews will address workload challenges. Additionally, fostering motivation through peer-led discussions and sharing positive outcomes can encourage continued commitment to stillbirth reviews.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelMaternal Health ServicesStillbirthAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleFocus GroupsHealth FacilitiesHumansIndiaMotivationPregnancyQualitative ResearchBarriersCOM-BFacilitatorsIndiaMPDSRStillbirth review

Identifiers

PMID40770617
PMCPMC12330080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.