ArticleBMJ open2025
Implementation strategies for the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC) has been implemented in diverse settings to improve the quality and safety of intrapartum care, but implementation strategies and their relationship with adoption and fidelity remain heterogeneous and incompletely described.
objectivesTo describe the landscape of SCC implementation, map the implementation strategies used and explore how these strategies were reported in relation to adoption and fidelity. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included primary studies reporting SCC implementation in healthcare settings that described at least one implementation strategy, with no restrictions on country or language. Studies that did not report implementation strategies or did not involve SCC use in real-world care settings were excluded. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health and Global Index Medicus (June 2024), screened reference lists and consulted grey literature for the period 2009-2024. CHARTING
methodsThis scoping review followed JBI methodology (Peters
results34 studies described 19 SCC implementation projects across 16 countries. We identified 24 distinct ERIC strategies, with most projects using 5-11 strategies. Frequently reported strategies included educational meetings, audit and feedback, supervision, contextual adaptation and leadership or champions. Exploratory analyses did not show consistent associations between implementation intensity and adoption or fidelity. 'Change infrastructure' strategies (such as record system or equipment changes) were variably defined and warrant cautious interpretation. Adaptations (eg, translation and alignment with national guidelines) were common and aimed at improving local fit, but heterogeneous reporting limited cross-study comparability.
conclusionsSCC implementation has relied on diverse, multicomponent strategies, yet reporting-especially of strategy content and adaptations-remains insufficient, constraining comparison and synthesis across settings. As a pragmatic bundle, implementers may prioritise brief team training, unit-level champions and leadership signals, point-of-care audit and feedback, light-touch SCC adaptation that preserves core content and structured supervision or peer coaching, combined with systematic inclusion of women and families through codesign and companion-mediated prompting. Using theory-informed frameworks (such as Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [CFIR]) and standardised reporting tools (eg, Proctor's outcomes; Template for Intervention Description and Replication / Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies [TIDieR/StaRI]) can make SCC implementation strategies more transparent, comparable and scalable. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RWY27.
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.