Immediate postpartum care in low- and middle-income countries: a gap in health care quality research and practice

  • Emma Clarke-Deelder
    Correspondence to: Emma Clarke-Deelder, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical & Public Health Institute, Allschwil, Switzerland
    Department of Global Health & Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States

    Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical & Public Health Institute, Allschwil, Switzerland
    Search for articles by this author
  • Kennedy Opondo
    Kisumu Medical and Education Trust, Kisumu, Kenya

    Vayu Global Health Foundation, Boston, MA, United States
    Search for articles by this author
  • Monica Oguttu
    Kisumu Medical and Education Trust, Kisumu, Kenya
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    # joint contribution
    Thomas Burke
    # joint contribution
    Department of Global Health & Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States

    Vayu Global Health Foundation, Boston, MA, United States

    Global Health Innovation Lab, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    # joint contribution
    Jessica Cohen
    # joint contribution
    Department of Global Health & Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    # joint contribution
    Margaret McConnell
    # joint contribution
    Department of Global Health & Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    # joint contribution
Published:October 06, 2022DOI:


      The immediate postpartum period carries significant risks of complications such as postpartum hemorrhage and sepsis. Postpartum monitoring, including taking vital signs and monitoring blood loss, is important for early identification and management of complications, but many women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) receive minimal attention between childbirth and facility discharge. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently released new guidelines on postnatal care, which include recommendations for immediate postpartum monitoring. In light of the new guidelines, this is an opportune moment to address gaps in postpartum monitoring in LMICs. In this commentary, we bring attention to the importance of immediate postpartum monitoring. We identify opportunities for strengthening this often over-looked aspect of maternity care through improvements in quality measurement and data availability, research into barriers to high quality care, and innovations in service delivery design.


      In the 24 hours after childbirth, women face a heightened risk of morbidity and mortality from postpartum complications such as hemorrhage and sepsis. An estimated 60% of maternal deaths occur in the postpartum period, and 45% of these deaths occur in the first 24 hours after delivery (1). While some complications are unavoidable, early identification and prompt management can reduce the chances of severe morbidity and mortality (2–4). This requires high quality immediate postpartum care, including monitoring patients for signs of complications after delivery and until discharge.
      Despite the importance of immediate postpartum monitoring in averting morbidity and mortality, there is substantially less attention to this topic than to quality of care during labor and delivery. The limited available evidence suggests that women delivering in LMICs receive minimal attention and care in the time between childbirth and facility discharge. A study conducted across 33 sub-Saharan African countries found that one-third of women did not receive a single health check between delivery and discharge (5). There is also scant evidence on why postpartum monitoring is so limited, or on how it can be improved.
      The World Health Organization (WHO)’s new postpartum care guidelines, published in March 2022 to update and expand on the 2014 guidelines, bring a renewed focus to the importance of prompt identification and management of complications in the immediate postpartum period (6,7). Motivated by the high burden of postnatal maternal and newborn mortality and by the “quality revolution” in global health (8–10), the new guidelines emphasize the importance of high-quality postnatal care – including continuous care and monitoring during the critical first 24 hours after childbirth followed by at least three postnatal care contacts during the first six weeks after delivery – and of ensuring a “positive postnatal experience” for women and their newborns. The release of these guidelines makes this an opportune time to address gaps in the quality of immediate postpartum care in LMICs.
      In this commentary, we highlight the importance of immediate postpartum monitoring, an often-overlooked aspect of maternal health care. We identify opportunities for strengthening the quality of immediate postpartum care through improvements in measurement and data availability, research into barriers to high quality care, and innovations in service delivery design.

      Clinical importance of postpartum monitoring

      The first recommendation in the WHO's 2022 postnatal care guidelines states that, following childbirth, all women should have “regular assessment of vaginal bleeding, uterine tonus, fundal height, temperature, and heart rate (pulse) routinely during the first 24 hours, starting from the first hour after birth.” While the specific recommendations on postnatal assessment have not changed – it still holds that women should be monitored four times during the first hour after delivery, hourly from hours 1 to 4, and every 4 hours from hours 4 to 24 (11) – the new, more all-encompassing postpartum guidelines bring renewed focus to these recommendations and their clinical importance.
      Evidence from maternal mortality reviews (sometimes called “maternal death audits”) underscores the importance of these guidelines. In a wide range of settings, these reviews have identified insufficient monitoring and delays in treatment initiation as important factors contributing to maternal mortality (12–18). For example, in a review of maternal deaths over a 10-year period in France, delayed management was a leading factor contributing to deaths from postpartum hemorrhage (13). A review from the United Kingdom concluded that, “in many cases in this Report, the early warning signs of impending maternal collapse went unrecognized” (19,20). In a review in Kenya, inadequate monitoring was found to have played a role in 27% of the investigated mortality cases, and prolonged abnormal observation without action was found to have played a role in 24% (14).
      Numerous studies from maternity care and other clinical domains have shown the value of vital signs measurements in predicting adverse clinical outcomes (21,22). For example, on medical and surgical wards, warning systems, which use clinical indicators such as vital signs and examination findings to identify patients at risk of clinical deterioration, have been shown to be effective in predicting cardiac arrest and mortality within 24 hours (21). A systematic review found that warning systems adapted for obstetric populations (sometimes called maternal warning systems) generally have high predictive accuracy for maternal morbidity, ICU admission, and mortality (22).
      Beyond the ability to predict outcomes, there is also a growing body of evidence that systems that improve patient monitoring can lead to better and more timely care decisions and improved patient outcomes (4,22–25). For example, evidence from general hospital wards indicates that continuous monitoring (e.g., using remote monitoring technologies) can reduce critical care use, shorten hospital stays, and improve clinical outcomes relative to intermittent monitoring (23). In a pilot study in a large hospital network in the United States, an obstetric warning system called the Maternal Early Warning Trigger (MEWT) tool was found to reduce severe maternal morbidity by 18% (4). It is important to note, however, that better monitoring alone does not always improve outcomes: in a large randomized trial in eight LMICs, the introduction of a device that improved vital signs measurement in maternity wards, together with a related education intervention, did not lead to improvements in clinical outcomes [53]. This finding highlights the importance of not only improving the measurement of clinical signs but also ensuring that effective systems are in place to respond to abnormal results.
      There have been widespread efforts to improve postpartum monitoring in high-income settings, including national implementation of obstetric warning systems in the United Kingdom (26) and Ireland (27) and numerous efforts to introduce similar systems in American hospitals (4,28). However, this topic has received relatively little attention to date in LMIC settings, despite the high burden of maternal morbidity and mortality in these settings. It is therefore critical to bring attention to postpartum monitoring in LMICs.

      Evidence on the quality of postpartum monitoring in LMICs

      The limited available evidence on the quality of postpartum monitoring in LMICs paints a concerning picture. While most women remain in the health facility after delivery for at least the WHO-recommended 24 hours (29), the care provided during this postpartum stay is minimal. Across 33 LMICs with available Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data from between 2000 and 2016, only 66% of women who delivered in health facilities reported that they received at least one postpartum health check during their facility stay, ranging from 27% in Eswatini to 94% in Burkina Faso (5). The rate of postpartum health checks was lowest in public health centers (61%) and highest in public hospitals (75%). An analysis of DHS survey data from Uganda found that, among women who delivered in health facilities, the proportion who reported at least one postpartum health check increased from 36% in 2006 to 65% in 2016 (30). However, surveys with health workers suggest that the quality of postpartum monitoring often worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in lower-resource settings: in a multi-country study, 45% of health workers in low-income countries and 11% of health workers in high-income countries reported reductions in the frequency of postpartum monitoring in health facilities (31).
      While survey evidence can provide some basic insight into postpartum monitoring, evidence from clinical observation can tell us more about its content. For example, in the “BetterBirth” trial, a cluster-randomized trial of a quality improvement intervention in health facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India, only 7% of women across 15 control facilities had their blood pressure taken at any time between admission to the facility and 1 hour after delivery (32). During the same period, only 0.3% ever had their temperature taken (32). In a study in Uganda, only 5% of observed providers took mothers’ vital signs during the first hour after birth (33). In a study across 36 primary health centers in Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Tanzania, postpartum monitoring for uterine contraction and vaginal blood loss was often not performed between delivery and discharge from the health facility (34). Though it provides a limited picture, this evidence points to important gaps in postpartum monitoring. The remainder of this piece describes our recommendations for improvements in immediate postpartum monitoring in LMICs, summarized in Table 1.
      Table 1Summary of challenges and recommendations for improving the quality of immediate postpartum monitoring

      Lack of standardized metrics for quality measurement1. Development of standardized metrics and measurement tools for the quality of immediate postpartum monitoring, including:

      - The content and frequency of postpartum health checks;

      - The presence of decision-making systems for when to escalate care; and

      - The timeliness of interventions in case of complications
      Over-reliance on maternal recall in quality measurement and limited observational data2. Development of better approaches to measuring quality of immediate postpartum monitoring, including through clinical observation
      Service delivery designLimited understanding of the reasons for low quality care3. Research on context-specific barriers to high-quality immediate postpartum monitoring, including:

      - Structural barriers, such as insufficient supplies or high patient-to-staff ratios; and

      - Barriers related to health facility norms, and health care provider behavior and decision-making

      - Barriers related to patient decision-making

      Limited knowledge of effective interventions to improve quality4. Development and testing of interventions to improve immediate postpartum monitoring, such as:

      - Changes to facility staffing to clearly define and allocate responsibilities in this period;

      - Investment in monitoring devices designed for low-resource settings;

      - Introduction of maternal warning systems, tailored to different contexts;

      - Innovative training and supervision approaches to improve health worker communication and decision-making; and

      - Behavior change interventions, such as the use of reminders to health workers or the application of human-centered design principles to increase the salience of postpartum monitoring

      Improving measurement of quality of postpartum monitoring

      A first step to improving the quality of immediate postpartum monitoring is better measurement. High quality immediate postpartum monitoring includes not only conducting the appropriate examinations with the appropriate frequency (as set out in WHO guidance), but also using the information gathered to inform clinical decision-making, escalate care as needed, and intervene in a timely manner. Quality measures should be developed to capture all of these steps, and then data should be collected to identify gaps in quality.
      Currently, the quality of immediate postpartum monitoring is measured in a piecemeal and inconsistent manner; different studies report different quality measures, and they typically omit important aspects of immediate postpartum monitoring. In recent years, there have been significant improvements in measurement of quality of care during labor and delivery, including the development of quality scales such as the Tripathi Index [39], which provides a standardized and validated approach for measuring the quality of labor and delivery care in LMICs. There has also been progress in the measurement of disrespect and abuse during childbirth [40] using standardized and validated measures. There is a need for similar progress in measurement of the quality of immediate postpartum monitoring. Standardized measures should be developed that incorporate the content and frequency of monitoring, whether systems are in place to use information from patient monitoring to inform decisions about when to escalate care, and whether complications are managed in a timely manner. The use of standardized quality measures across settings and over time will facilitate the identification of gaps in quality, inform the design of interventions to improve quality, and enable the measurement of progress towards improved quality.
      In addition to a lack of standard measures, there are several major challenges with the data collection approaches that are currently used to measure the quality of immediate postpartum monitoring. First, much of the existing work in this area relies on maternal recall, which likely contains substantial measurement error as women may not accurately recall the care they received or may not know what constitutes a postpartum health check (35,36). For example, in the widely used DHS, women are asked to recall care from the past five years (5,29,30). Direct observation can provide more accurate, detailed information on quality. However, to date, direct observation studies have typically collected only limited information on postpartum care. Most delivery observation studies have ended within one hour of delivery (37), and postpartum care studies have typically focused on later postpartum assessments in the weeks following delivery (38); few studies have measured quality of care during the 24 hours after delivery, despite the high risk of complications during this period. Future studies should employ direct observation methods or other innovative techniques to evaluate the quality of care throughout the immediate postpartum period. Another approach may be the use of health facility records to evaluate the quality of postpartum monitoring (39); however, facility records should be used with caution in health systems with low quality administrative data (36).

      Service delivery research and innovation

      Next, it will be critical to understand and address the different barriers that have hindered progress to date.
      Barriers to high quality care exist at many levels, including the health system, health facility, provider, and patient. Health system barriers include challenges with supplies such as blood pressure cuffs and thermometers, staffing, and provider training. However, in studies from a variety of different health domains, insufficient equipment and knowledge rarely fully explain quality gaps; indeed substantial “know-do gaps” have been identified in maternity care and other domains in low- and middle-income countries (33,34,40,41). Health facility norms and health care provider beliefs, behavior, and motivation likely also play a role. For example, even if maternity care providers are aware of postpartum care guidelines (33), they may not perceive postpartum monitoring as part of their job. Qualitative research with health care providers in India and Nigeria suggests that once a delivery has been completed many providers feel “their work is over” (42,43). In addition, insufficient communication between providers in labor and postnatal wards can mean that risks, which may be evident during labor and delivery, are ignored or miscommunicated when patients are transferred to the postnatal ward (44). There is evidence that over-confidence bias among health care providers can contribute to lower quality care (45); understanding the potential role of overconfidence in shaping postpartum monitoring decisions may provide insights into how to improve care. Finally, patient-level challenges may include patient preferences to leave health facilities soon after delivery. The WHO recommends that all women remain in the health facility for at least 24 hours after an uncomplicated vaginal delivery: while the majority do this, many women leave much sooner (29). Insights into patient decision-making and the factors that support or hinder longer facility stays are needed to ensure that all women receive adequate postpartum monitoring.
      While the new WHO guidelines address the frequency and content of postpartum monitoring, they do not provide guidance on how monitoring could be improved or how to ensure that information collected during patient monitoring is used to inform decisions about when to escalate care (6). Addressing quality gaps will require innovative thinking, including the adaptation of existing approaches and the development of new systems and tools. This is an important area for future research. In some contexts, there may need to be increases in staffing or reallocation of staffing towards monitoring roles. There may also be a need for investment in monitoring devices including accurate, affordable, automated blood pressure monitors (46,47).
      More complex interventions may also be needed. One promising way forward is the design and implementation of maternal warning systems for different contexts, building on experiences to date in settings such as Ethiopia, Malawi, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe (48–52). For example, a pilot study of a maternal warning system in referral hospital in Zimbabwe suggested that wider implementation of these interventions may be a feasible and effective way to improve patient outcomes (48).Warning systems provide a structured protocol for monitoring and for using information from monitoring to inform decision-making about care (28). While there are a variety of different approaches used, including both single-parameter and multi-parameter warning measures, these systems typically rely on metrics that are easy to collect in low-resource settings (53,54). Existing work has highlighted a number of factors that are critical to the success of warning systems, including local validation of the predictive accuracy of the warning system, clear processes for escalating care, facility norms that reward providers when they call for support as needed, and buy-in from senior clinicians and facility leadership (28,50,51). These findings should be considered in efforts to innovatively and adaptively develop warning systems for implementation in different settings.
      Beyond warning systems, further innovations could be informed by evidence on closing the “know-do gap” from a variety of clinical domains. For example, multifaceted approaches that combine health worker training with supervision or group problem-solving activities have been effective in improving adherence to pediatric care guidelines (55); similar interventions could be adapted to improve communication around patient risks and decision-making around escalation of care in maternity wards. Health care providers at facilities in rural areas are likely to face particular challenges, given their often limited experience with emergency or complex cases: novel training or coaching interventions may be needed in these settings. There is evidence that different types of facilities may be better at motivating providers to provide high quality care and therefore reduce know-do gaps: for example, research from India suggests that quality is higher in public hospitals and private clinics than in small public clinics (56), and research from Tanzania suggests that providers perform better in facilities with decentralized authority (e.g., where decisions about hiring and firing providers are made more locally) (57). Changes in facility organization and norms may be needed to promote a culture in which providers actively assess patients for the risk of postpartum complications, rather than responding after complications have already progressed to severe (42). Principles from human-centered design could be applied to increase the salience of postpartum monitoring to providers (58). Interventions should be informed by an understanding how providers think, communicate, and make decisions about postpartum care (59).


      In order to reduce morbidity and mortality from postpartum complications in LMICs, there is a vital need for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to bring increased focus to immediate postpartum monitoring. We need to better understand the current state of immediate postpartum monitoring, examine reasons for limited postpartum monitoring, and develop and test interventions to improve it.


      1. Li XF, Fortney JA, Kotelchuck M, Glover LH. The postpartum period: the key to maternal mortality. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 1996 Jul;54(1):1–10.
      2. Pacagnella RC, Cecatti JG, Osis MJ, Souza JP. The role of delays in severe maternal morbidity and mortality: expanding the conceptual framework. Reproductive Health Matters. 2012 Jan;20(39):155–63.
      3. Borovac‐Pinheiro A, Priyadarshani P, Burke TF. A review of postpartum hemorrhage in low‐income countries and implications for strengthening health systems. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2021 Sep;154(3):393–9.
      4. Shields LE, Wiesner S, Klein C, Pelletreau B, Hedriana HL. Use of Maternal Early Warning Trigger tool reduces maternal morbidity. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016 Apr;214(4):527.e1-527.e6.
      5. Benova L, Owolabi O, Radovich E, Wong KLM, Macleod D, Langlois EV, et al. Provision of postpartum care to women giving birth in health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa: A cross-sectional study using Demographic and Health Survey data from 33 countries. Myers JE, editor. PLoS Med. 2019 Oct 23;16(10):e1002943.
      6. WHO recommendations on maternal and newborn care for a positive postnatal experience [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2022 Mar [cited 2022 Apr 13]. Available from:
      7. WHO. WHO recommendations on postnatal care of the mother and newborn [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 May 9]. Available from:
      8. Kruk ME, Larson E, Twum-Danso NAY. Time for a quality revolution in global health. The Lancet Global Health. 2016 Sep;4(9):e594–6.
      9. Crossing the global quality chasm: improving health care worldwide [Internet]. Washington, DC: National Academics of Science, Engineering, Medicine; 2018. Available from:∼/media/ Files/Report%20Files/2001/Crossing-the-Quality-Chasm/Quality%20 Chasm%202001%20%20report%20brief.pdf
      10. Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for universal health coverage [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization, OECD, and The World Bank; Available from: eng.pd
      11. Pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum and newborn care: A guide for essential practice (3rd edition) [Internet]. WHO, United Nations Population Fund, UNICEF; 2015. Available from:
      12. McClure JH, Cooper GM, Clutton-Brock TH. Saving Mothers’ Lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer: 2006–8: a review. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2011 Aug;107(2):127–32.
      13. Saucedo M, Deneux-Tharaux C, Bouvier-Colle MH. Ten Years of Confidential Inquiries Into Maternal Deaths in France, 1998–2007: Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2013 Oct;122(4):752–60.
      14. Saving Mothers’ Lives: Confidential Inquiry into Maternal Deaths in Kenya [Internet]. Kenya National MPDSR Secretariat, Reproductive and Maternal Health Services Unit, Ministry of Health; 2017 [cited 2020 Mar 5]. Available from:
      15. Hussein J, Hirose A, Owolabi O, Imamura M, Kanguru L, Okonofua F. Maternal death and obstetric care audits in Nigeria: a systematic review of barriers and enabling factors in the provision of emergency care. Reprod Health. 2016 Dec;13(1):47.
      16. Kongnyuy EJ, Mlava G, van den Broek N. Facility-Based Maternal Death Review In Three Districts In The Central Region of Malawi. Women's Health Issues. 2009 Jan;19(1):14–20.
      17. Nsangamay T, Mash R. How to improve the quality of care for women with postpartum haemorrhage at Onandjokwe Hospital, Namibia: quality improvement study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Dec;19(1):489.
      18. Merali HS, Lipsitz S, Hevelone N, Gawande AA, Lashoher A, Agrawal P, et al. Audit-identified avoidable factors in maternal and perinatal deaths in low resource settings: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Dec;14(1):280.
      19. Friedman AM. Maternal Early Warning Systems. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America. 2015 Jun;42(2):289–98.
      20. Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH). Saving mothers’ lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer - 2003-2005. London; 2007 Dec. (Seventh Report of the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Death in the United Kingdom).
      21. Smith MEB, Chiovaro JC, O'Neil M, Kansagara D, Quiñones AR, Freeman M, et al. Early Warning System Scores for Clinical Deterioration in Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review. Annals ATS. 2014 Nov;11(9):1454–65.
      22. Umar A, Ameh CA, Muriithi F, Mathai M. Early warning systems in obstetrics: A systematic literature review. Patman S, editor. PLoS ONE. 2019 May 31;14(5):e0217864.
      23. Downey CL, Chapman S, Randell R, Brown JM, Jayne DG. The impact of continuous versus intermittent vital signs monitoring in hospitals: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2018 Aug;84:19–27.
      24. Bunkenborg G, Samuelson K, Poulsen I, Ladelund S, Åkeson J. Lower incidence of unexpected in-hospital death after interprofessional implementation of a bedside track-and-trigger system. Resuscitation. 2014 Mar;85(3):424–30.
      25. Mathukia C, Fan W, Vadyak K, Biege C, Krishnamurthy M. Modified Early Warning System improves patient safety and clinical outcomes in an academic community hospital. Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives. 2015 Jan;5(2):26716.
      26. Mackintosh N, Watson K, Rance S, Sandall J. Value of a modified early obstetric warning system (MEOWS) in managing maternal complications in the peripartum period: an ethnographic study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Jan;23(1):26–34.
      27. Maguire PJ, O'Higgins AC, Power KA, Daly N, McKeating A, Turner MJ. Maternal bacteremia and the Irish maternity early warning system. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2015 May;129(2):142–5.
      28. Mhyre JM, D'Oria R, Hameed AB, Lappen JR, Holley SL, Hunter SK, et al. The Maternal Early Warning Criteria: A Proposal from the National Partnership for Maternal Safety. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing. 2014 Nov;43(6):771–9.
      29. Campbell OMR, Cegolon L, Macleod D, Benova L. Length of Stay After Childbirth in 92 Countries and Associated Factors in 30 Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Compilation of Reported Data and a Cross-sectional Analysis from Nationally Representative Surveys. Myers JE, editor. PLoS Med. 2016 Mar 8;13(3):e1001972.
      30. Dey T, Ononge S, Weeks A, Benova L. Immediate postnatal care following childbirth in Ugandan health facilities: an analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys between 2001 and 2016. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Apr;6(4):e004230.
      31. Semaan A, Dey T, Kikula A, Asefa A, Delvaux T, Langlois E, et al. “Separated during the first hours”—Postnatal care for women and newborns during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods cross-sectional study from a global online survey of maternal and newborn healthcare providers. PLOS Global Public Health. 2022 Apr 28;2(4):e0000214.
      32. Semrau KEA, Hirschhorn LR, Marx Delaney M, Singh VP, Saurastri R, Sharma N, et al. Outcomes of a Coaching-Based WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist Program in India. New England Journal of Medicine. 2017 Dec 14;377(24):2313–24.
      33. Rokicki S, Mwesigwa B, Cohen JL. Know‐do gaps in obstetric and newborn care quality in Uganda: a cross‐sectional study in rural health facilities. Trop Med Int Health. 2021 May;26(5):535–45.
      34. Duysburgh E, Temmerman M, Yé M, Williams A, Massawe S, Williams J, et al. Quality of antenatal and childbirth care in rural health facilities in Burkina Faso, Ghana and Tanzania: an intervention study. Trop Med Int Health. 2016 Jan;21(1):70–83.
      35. McCarthy KJ, Blanc AK, Warren CE, Kimani J, Mdawida B, Ndwidga C. Can surveys of women accurately track indicators of maternal and newborn care? A validity and reliability study in Kenya. Journal of Global Health. 2016 Dec;6(2):020502.
      36. Day LT, Sadeq-ur Rahman Q, Ehsanur Rahman A, Salim N, Kc A, Ruysen H, et al. Assessment of the validity of the measurement of newborn and maternal health-care coverage in hospitals (EN-BIRTH): an observational study. The Lancet Global Health. 2021 Mar;9(3):e267–79.
      37. Brizuela V, Leslie HH, Sharma J, Langer A, Tunçalp Ö. Measuring quality of care for all women and newborns: how do we know if we are doing it right? A review of facility assessment tools. The Lancet Global Health. 2019 May;7(5):e624–32.
      38. Watt C, Abuya T, Warren CE, Obare F, Kanya L, Bellows B. Can Reproductive Health Voucher Programs Improve Quality of Postnatal Care? A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Kenya's Safe Motherhood Voucher Scheme. Kumar A, editor. PLoS ONE. 2015 Apr 2;10(4):e0122828.
      39. Ogero M, Ayieko P, Makone B, Julius T, Malla L, Oliwa J, et al. An observational study of monitoring of vital signs in children admitted to Kenyan hospitals: an insight into the quality of nursing care? Journal of Global Health. 2018;8(1):010409.
      40. Mohanan M, Vera-Hernández M, Das V, Giardili S, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Rabin TL, et al. The Know-Do Gap in Quality of Health Care for Childhood Diarrhea and Pneumonia in Rural India. JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Apr 1;169(4):349.
      41. Das J, Hammer J. Quality of Primary Care in Low-Income Countries: Facts and Economics. Annual Review of Economics. 2014 Aug;6(1):525–53.
      42. Engl E, Kretschmer S, Jain M, Sharma S, Prasad R, Ramesh BM, et al. Categorizing and assessing comprehensive drivers of provider behavior for optimizing quality of health care. Vellakkal S, editor. PLoS ONE. 2019 Apr 17;14(4):e0214922.
      43. Chukwuma A, Mbachu C, Cohen J, Bossert T, McConnell M. “Once the delivery is done, they have finished”: a qualitative study of perspectives on postnatal care referrals by traditional birth attendants in Ebonyi state, Nigeria. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Dec;17(1):429.
      44. Kaye DK, Nakimuli A, Kakaire O, Osinde MO, Mbalinda SN, Kakande N. Gaps in continuity of care: patients’ perceptions of the quality of care during labor ward handover in Mulago hospital, Uganda. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Dec;15(1):190.
      45. Lagarde M, Blaauw D. A review of the application and contribution of discrete choice experiments to inform human resources policy interventions. Human Resources for Health [Internet]. 2009 Dec [cited 2019 Mar 18];7(1). Available from:
      46. Vousden N, Nathan HL, Shennan AH. Innovations in vital signs measurement for the detection of hypertension and shock in pregnancy. Reprod Health. 2018 Jun;15(S1):92.
      47. World Health Organization. WHO technical specifications for automated non-invasive blood pressure measuring devices with cuff [Internet]. 2020. Available from:
      48. Merriel A, Murove BT, Merriel SWD, Sibanda T, Moyo S, Crofts J. Implementation of a modified obstetric early warning system to improve the quality of obstetric care in Zimbabwe. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2017 Feb;136(2):175–9.
      49. Isemede AO, Beckley SO. Maternal Early Warning Scores (MEWS): Development of a Nigerian National Maternal Early Warning Scores (MEWS) Version. ijirms [Internet]. 2020 Feb 19 [cited 2022 Apr 13];5(02). Available from:
      50. Moore J, Thomson D, Pimentil I, Fekad B, Graham W. Introduction of a modified obstetric early warning system (MOEWS) at an Ethiopian referral hospital: a feasibility assessment. Open access. :5.
      51. Wheeler I, Price C, Sitch A, Banda P, Kellett J, Nyirenda M, et al. Early Warning Scores Generated in Developed Healthcare Settings Are Not Sufficient at Predicting Early Mortality in Blantyre, Malawi: A Prospective Cohort Study. Salluh JIF, editor. PLoS ONE. 2013 Mar 29;8(3):e59830.
      52. Sheikh S, Qureshi R, Nausheen S, Sultanali RS. Implementation of warning tool to improve maternal newborn health outcomes in a developing country. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association: JPMA. 2017;67(1):111–5.
      53. Umar A, Ameh CA, Muriithi F, Mathai M. Early warning systems in obstetrics: A systematic literature review. Patman S, editor. PLoS ONE. 2019 May 31;14(5):e0217864.
      54. Umar A, Manu A, Mathai M, Ameh C. Development and validation of an obstetric early warning system model for use in low resource settings. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Dec;20(1):531.
      55. Rowe AK, Labadie G, Jackson D, Vivas-Torrealba C, Simon J. Improving health worker performance: an ongoing challenge for meeting the sustainable development goals. BMJ. 2018 Jul 30;k2813.
      56. Das J, Hammer J. Money for nothing: The dire straits of medical practice in Delhi, India. Journal of Development Economics. 2007 May;83(1):1–36.
      57. Leonard KL, Masatu MC, Vialou A. Getting Doctors to Do Their Best: The Roles of Ability and Motivation in Health Care Quality. The Journal of Human Resources. 2007;42(3):682–700.
      58. Birnbach D, Nevo I, Scheinman S, Fitzpatrick M, Shekhter I, Lombard J. Patient safety begins with proper planning: a quantitative method to improve hospital design. Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2010;19:462–5.
      59. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PAC, et al. Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines? A Framework for Improvement. Pediatr Res. 1999 Apr;45(4, Part 2 of 2):121A-121A.