Effectiveness of the modified WHO labour care guide to detect prolonged and obstructed labour among women admitted at publicly funded facilities in rural Mbarara district, Southwestern Uganda: an ambispective cohort study.

Background: Obstructed labour, a sequel of prolonged labour, remains a significant contributor to maternal and perinatal deaths in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: We evaluated the modified World Health Organization (WHO) Labour Care Guide (LCG) in detecting prolonged and or obstructed labour, and other delivery outcomes compared with a traditional partograph at publicly-funded maternity centers of rural Mbarara district and City, Southwestern Uganda. Methods: Since November 2023, we deployed the LCG for use in monitoring labour by trained healthcare providers across all maternity centers in Mbarara district/City. We systematically randomized a total of six health center IIIs (HCIIIs) out of 11, and all health center IVs (HCIVs), reviewed all their patient labour monitoring records for their first quarter of 2024 (LCG-intervention) and 2023 (partograph-before LCG introduction). Our primary outcome was the proportion of women diagnosed with prolonged and or obstructed labour. Our secondary outcomes included; tool completion, mode of delivery, labour augmentation, stillbirths, maternal deaths, Apgar score, uterine rupture, postpartum haemorrhage (PPH). Data was collected in RedCap and analyzed using STATA version 17. Statistical significance was considered at p<0.05. Results: A total of 2,011 women were registered; 991 (49.3%) monitored using the LCG, and 1,020 (50.7%) using a partograph, 87% (1,741/2011) delivered from HCIVs and 270/2011 (13%) from HCIIIs. Mean maternal age (25.9; SD=5.6) and mean gestation age (39.4; SD=1.8) were similar between the two groups. A total of 120 (12.4%) cases of prolonged/obstructed labour were diagnosed (100 for LCG versus 20 for partograph), with the LCG having six times higher odds to detect/diagnose prolonged/obstructed labour compared to the partograph (aOR=5.94; CI 95% 3.63-9.73, P<0.001). Detection of obstructed labour alone increased to 12-fold with the LCG compared to the partograph (aOR=11.74; CI 95% 3.55-38.74, P<0.001). We also observed increased Caesarean section rates (aOR=6.12; CI 4.32-8.67, P<0.001), augmentation of labour (aOR=3.11; CI 95% 1.81-5.35, P<0.001), and better Apgar Score at 5 minutes (aOR=2.29; CI 95% 1.11-5.77, P=0.025). The tool completion rate was better for LCG compared to (58.5% versus 46.3%), aOR=2.11; CI 95% 1.08-5.44, P<0.001. We observed no differences in stillbirths, maternal deaths, post-partum haemorrhage (PPH) and uterine rupture. Conclusions: Our data shows that LCG diagnosed more cases of prolonged and or obstructed labour compared to the partograph among women delivering at rural publicly funded facilities in Mbarara city/district. We also observed increased C-sections, labour augmentation, and 5-minute Apgar scores. There were no differences in stillbirths, maternal deaths, PPH and uterine rupture. More controlled and powered studies should evaluate the two tools for other delivery outcomes, in different sub-populations.Trial registration number NCT05979194 clinical trials.gov.

Global research priorities related to the World Health Organization Labour Care Guide: results of a global consultation.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) published the WHO Labour Care Guide (LCG) in 2020 to support the implementation of its 2018 recommendations on intrapartum care. The WHO LCG promotes evidence-based labour monitoring and stimulates shared decision-making between maternity care providers and labouring women. There is a need to identify critical questions that will contribute to defining the research agenda relating to implementation of the WHO LCG. METHODS: This mixed-methods prioritization exercise, adapted from the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) and James Lind Alliance (JLA) methods, combined a metrics-based design with a qualitative, consensus-building consultation in three phases. The exercise followed the reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). First, 30 stakeholders were invited to submit online ideas or questions (generation of research ideas). Then, 220 stakeholders were invited to score "research avenues" (i.e., broad research ideas that could be answered through a set of research questions) against six independent and equally weighted criteria (scoring of research avenues). Finally, a technical working group (TWG) of 20 purposively selected stakeholders reviewed the scoring, and refined and ranked the research avenues (consensus-building meeting). RESULTS: Initially, 24 stakeholders submitted 89 research ideas or questions. A list of 10 consolidated research avenues was scored by 75/220 stakeholders. During the virtual consensus-building meeting, research avenues were refined, and the top three priorities agreed upon were: (1) optimize implementation strategies of WHO LCG, (2) improve understanding of the effect of WHO LCG on maternal and perinatal outcomes, and the process and experience of labour and childbirth care, and (3) assess the effect of the WHO LCG in special situations or settings. Research avenues related to the organization of care and resource utilization ranked lowest during both the scoring and consensus-building process. CONCLUSION: This systematic and transparent process should encourage researchers, program implementers, and funders to support research aligned with the identified priorities related to WHO LCG. An international collaborative platform is recommended to implement prioritized research by using harmonized research tools, establishing a repository of research priorities studies, and scaling-up successful research results.

The development of the WHO Labour Care Guide: an international survey of maternity care providers.

BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: Skilled 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. RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSIONS: Future 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.

Usability, acceptability, and feasibility of the World Health Organization Labour Care Guide: A mixed-methods, multicountry evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization's (WHO) Labour Care Guide (LCG) is a "next-generation" partograph based on WHO's latest intrapartum care recommendations. It aims to optimize clinical care provided to women and their experience of care. We evaluated the LCG's usability, feasibility, and acceptability among maternity care practitioners in clinical settings. METHODS: Mixed-methods evaluation with doctors, midwives, and nurses in 12 health facilities across Argentina, India, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, and Tanzania. Purposively sampled and trained practitioners applied the LCG in low-risk women during labor and rated experiences, satisfaction, and usability. Practitioners were invited to focus group discussions (FGDs) to share experiences and perceptions of the LCG, which were subjected to framework analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six practitioners applied the LCG in managing labor and birth of 1,226 low-risk women. The majority of women had a spontaneous vaginal birth (91.6%); two cases of intrapartum stillbirths (1.63 per 1000 births) occurred. Practitioner satisfaction with the LCG was high, and median usability score was 67.5%. Practitioners described the LCG as supporting precise and meticulous monitoring during labor, encouraging critical thinking in labor management, and improving the provision of woman-centered care. CONCLUSIONS: The LCG is feasible and acceptable to use across different clinical settings and can promote woman-centered care, though some design improvements would benefit usability. Implementing the LCG needs to be accompanied by training and supportive supervision, and strategies to promote an enabling environment (including updated policies on supportive care interventions, and ensuring essential equipment is available).