Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40772012›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2025

Towards a universal implementation of labor companionship: a synthesis of the policy and facility environment of eight low-and-middle income countries.

Soha El-Halabi, Andrea Barnabas Pembe, Alexandre Dumont, Ana Pilar Betrán, Charles Kaboré, Effie Chipeta, Guillermo Carroli, Helle Mölsted Alvesson, Hussein Kidanto, Jean-Paul Dossou and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

18 authors.

Soha El-HalabiDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Andrea Barnabas PembeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, College of Medicine, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Alexandre DumontResearch Institute for Sustainable Development, Université Paris Cité, IRD, Inserm, Ceped, Paris, France.
Ana Pilar BetránUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Charles KaboréInstitut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé (IRSS), Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Effie ChipetaCollege of Medicine, The Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi.
Guillermo CarroliCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Rosario, Argentina.
Helle Mölsted AlvessonDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hussein KidantoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gyneacology, Aga Khan University, Medical College, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Jean-Paul DossouCentre de Recherche en Reproduction Humaine et en Démographie (CERRHUD), Cotonou, Benin.
Kristi Sidney AnnerstedtDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lenka BeňováDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Mechthild M GrossMidwifery Research and Education Unit, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Peter WaiswaDepartment of Health Policy Planning and Management, Centre of Excellence for Maternal Newborn and Child Health, School of Public Health, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Pisake LumbiganonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Quoc Nhu Hung MacPham Ngoc Thach University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Meghan A BohrenGender and Women's Health, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Claudia HansonDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Labor companionship, the presence of a woman's person of choice during childbirth, has benefits to both woman and baby and is recommended by the World Health Organization since 2012. However, implementation remains sub-optimal, especially in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to understand the maturity of labor companionship implementation in eight low-and-middle income countries with focus on the policy and facility environment. Methods: This was a multi-country study nested in two hospital-based implementation research studies: Action Leveraging Evidence to Reduce perinatal mortality and morbidity in Sub-Saharan Africa (ALERT) study and the QUALIty DECision-making by women and providers for appropriate use of caesarean section (QUALI-DEC) study. We included 48 hospitals from eight countries: Argentina, Burkina Faso, Thailand and Viet Nam (QUALI-DEC) and four from each of Benin, Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda (ALERT). We used data from (i) a document review, including national policy documents and (ii) health facility readiness assessment, including physical layouts of maternity wards, all collected between December 2019 and April 2021. Our analysis included two steps, (1) a structured data abstraction with coding to pre-defined categories to analyse the national polices and available resources on a facility level which informed the (2) categorization of implementation maturity in three implementation phases modelled by the framework by Bergh et al. and the logic model developed by Bohren et al. Results: Three of the eight countries lacked any national-level companionship policies, four had some mentioning and only one had detailed guidance on roles of labor companions and implementation guidelines. The physical outlines of maternity wards varied greatly, and lack of space was one of the main implementation barriers to all countries except Argentina. We classified Benin, Thailand and Viet Nam in the pre-implementation phase because of missing guidelines and limited implementation; Burkina Faso, Malawi, Uganda and Tanzania in the early implementation phase; and Argentina in the institutionalization phase where policies and facility resources were conducive. Conclusion: Successful implementation was supported by concrete and contextualized implementation guidance. To move to high implementation levels, supporting policies, guidelines and structural changes in the maternity wards are needed.

Indexed as

childbirthhealth policyimplementation researchintrapartum carelabor companionshipLMICsmaternal healthquality of care

Identifiers

PMID40772012
PMCPMC12325283

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.