ArticlePloS one2026
Monitoring childbirth and immediate postpartum care quality: A scoping review of indicators in high-income countries.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality occur during childbirth and the immediate postnatal period. In high-income countries, where most births occur in maternity units, systematic monitoring of care quality is essential to improve safety and reduce preventable adverse outcomes.
objectiveTo identify maternal and neonatal indicators of quality-of-care at childbirth and immediate postnatal period in high-income countries, and to assess their level of validity.
methodsThis scoping review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in April 2024 (updated March 2025) in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Eligible studies included literature from high-income countries reporting quality-of-care indicators. Indicators were extracted as reported and consolidated: those with aligned definitions were clustered into standardised indicators and subsequently grouped into broader constructs reflecting key dimensions of care. Indicators were grouped into four domains (access, structure, process, and outcome) and evaluated using a structured validity scoring system. Indicators were classified as high-validity if they included a clear definition (with specified numerator and denominator) and achieved a validity score of 3 or 4 on a 0-4 scale.
resultsEighty-four studies were included. In total, 981 individual indicators were identified; 546 were clearly defined and consolidated into 214 standardised indicators and 61 indicator constructs. Most focused on outcomes (n = 253, 46.3%) and processes (n = 243, 44.5%), with substantial heterogeneity in definitions. Fewer indicators addressed structure (n = 47, 8.6%) and access (n = 3, 0.6%). Nearly one third of all indicators demonstrated high-validity, mainly within outcome and process domains.
conclusionsThis review identified a large set of quality-of-care indicators, reflecting sustained efforts to monitor care around childbirth. However, heterogeneity in definitions and variable validation limit comparability and routine use. These findings highlight the need for greater validation and standardisation of indicators, followed by the prioritisation of high-validity measures to support meaningful quality monitoring and improvement.
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.