↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program in reducing severe maternal, fetal, and newborn harm in Uttar Pradesh, India: study protocol for a matched-pair, cluster-randomized…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
249 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program in reducing severe maternal, fetal, and newborn harm in Uttar Pradesh, India: study protocol for a matched-pair, cluster-randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1673-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine E. A. Semrau, Lisa R. Hirschhorn, Bhala Kodkany, Jonathan M. Spector, Danielle E. Tuller, Gary King, Stuart Lipsitz, Narender Sharma, Vinay Pratap Singh, Bharath Kumar, Neelam Dhingra-Kumar, Rebecca Firestone, Vishwajeet Kumar, Atul A. Gawande

Abstract

Effective, scalable strategies to improve maternal, fetal, and newborn health and reduce preventable morbidity and mortality are urgently needed in low- and middle-income countries. Building on the successes of previous checklist-based programs, the World Health Organization (WHO) and partners led the development of the Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC), a 28-item list of evidence-based practices linked with improved maternal and newborn outcomes. Pilot-testing of the Checklist in Southern India demonstrated dramatic improvements in adherence by health workers to essential childbirth-related practices (EBPs). The BetterBirth Trial seeks to measure the effectiveness of SCC impact on EBPs, deaths, and complications at a larger scale. This matched-pair, cluster-randomized controlled, adaptive trial will be conducted in 120 facilities across 24 districts in Uttar Pradesh, India. Study sites, identified according to predefined eligibility criteria, were matched by measured covariates before randomization. The intervention, the SCC embedded in a quality improvement program, consists of leadership engagement, a 2-day educational launch of the SCC, and support through placement of a trained peer "coach" to provide supportive supervision and real-time data feedback over an 8-month period with decreasing intensity. A facility-based childbirth quality coordinator is trained and supported to drive sustained behavior change after the BetterBirth team leaves the facility. Study participants are birth attendants and women and their newborns who present to the study facilities for childbirth at 60 intervention and 60 control sites. The primary outcome is a composite measure including maternal death, maternal severe morbidity, stillbirth, and newborn death, occurring within 7 days after birth. The sample size (n = 171,964) was calculated to detect a 15% reduction in the primary outcome. Adherence by health workers to EBPs will be measured in a subset of births (n = 6000). The trial will be conducted in close collaboration with key partners including the Governments of India and Uttar Pradesh, the World Health Organization, an expert Scientific Advisory Committee, an experienced local implementing organization (Population Services International, PSI), and frontline facility leaders and workers. If effective, the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program could be a powerful health facility-strengthening intervention to improve quality of care and reduce preventable harm to women and newborns, with millions of potential beneficiaries. BetterBirth Study Protocol dated: 13 February 2014; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02148952 ; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1131-5647.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 248 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 16%
Researcher 36 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Other 19 8%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 65 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 19%
Social Sciences 21 8%
Psychology 8 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 2%
Other 26 10%
Unknown 77 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,255,292
of 19,996,019 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#811
of 5,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,570
of 412,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#76
of 442 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,996,019 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 412,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 442 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.