Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Implementation Science 1/2021

Open Access 01.12.2021 | Letter to the Editor

Letter to the editor of implementation science in response to “Implementation Science in maternity care, A scoping Review” by Dadich, Piper, and Coates (2021)

verfasst von: Rachel Blankstein Breman, Rebecca Feldman Hamm, Jennifer A. Callaghan-Koru

Erschienen in: Implementation Science | Ausgabe 1/2021

download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN
insite
SUCHEN
Hinweise
This comment refers to the article available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13012-021-01083-6.
An author's reply to this comment is available online at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13012-021-01148-6.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Dear Editors:
Thank you for the recent publication “Implementation Science in maternity care, A scoping Review” by Dadich, Piper, and Coates. As the authors note, preventable maternal morbidity and mortality is an urgent health crisis. Maternity care is plagued by evidence-based practice gaps at two extremes—“too much too soon” and “too little too late.” In both high- and low-resource settings, there is underuse of many effective interventions, as well as unwarranted over intervention in normal physiologic labor [1]. As this review demonstrates, maternity care is in great need of implementation research to close these gaps. While we applaud Dadich and colleagues’ attention to this important issue, we also have concerns about the study’s methodology. Specifically, we believe the authors should have used broader search terms in order to provide a comprehensive assessment of implementation science in maternity care.
The methods state that the search terms were limited to two—“implementation” and “maternity.” Restricting the search to articles with the exact term “maternity” provides a vastly incomplete picture of the literature surrounding maternity care. Maternity care is a continuum, encompassing prenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum care, and involves a mix of providers, including midwives, obstetricians, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, and nurses. Search terms essential to any review regarding maternity care would include perinatal, prenatal/antenatal, labor, intrapartum, obstetric, midwifery, birth, childbirth, postpartum, and maternal. In order to fully understand implementation research within maternity care, we need to consider the different, but related terms that can be employed across studies and settings. We do not consider these terms to be “euphemisms,” as suggested in the paper’s discussion, but rather critical terms to identify relevant literature within the scope of this review.
A prior systematic search we conducted with broader maternal health search terms identified 58 additional implementation research studies addressing maternity care for the United States alone. We are specifically concerned with the absence of important implementation research studies on critical interventions for the reduction of maternal morbidity and mortality globally:
  • The World Health Organization’s Safe Childbirth Checklist includes interventions to prevention of morbidity due to hypertension, hemorrhage, infection, and other causes. The BetterBirth trial, a large trial implementing the checklist in India, published multiple reports not captured in the review [25]. Implementation of this checklist, with coaching support, yielded equivocal results, an important consideration for future implementation initiatives and research in low-resource setting studies.
  • Postpartum health and monitoring are also an essential aspect of maternity care. One example is a shelf-stable, relatively inexpensive injection of oxytocin in the third stage of labor to prevent postpartum hemorrhage and death. This practice is frequently referred to as active management of the third stage of labor (AMTSL) [6]. Multiple studies have assessed implementation of AMTSL [79], yet none of these or any on this topic were included in the review.
  • Overuse of cesarean and underutilization of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) have contributed to maternal morbidity and mortality in more developed countries [10, 11]. Several studies addressing implementation of strategies and practices to prevent primary cesarean birth in countries where overuse is a major challenge to improve birth outcomes were not included in this review [1214].
We also note the exclusion of published studies utilizing implementation research frameworks and theories in maternity care. We are aware of nine additional studies employing the CFIR in maternity care published during the search period within the USA [1523]. These studies took place in hospital labor and delivery units, outpatient prenatal/postpartum clinics, and community organizations, and addressed implementation of practices related oral health, obstetric hemorrhage, and long acting reversible contraception, among other interventions. Similar studies may have been overlooked from other countries.
The breadth of maternity care settings, and diversity of implementation constraints between settings, makes it challenging to map this literature in one review paper. Dadich and colleagues, like implementation scientists assessing literature in other clinical areas [24], rightly note the need to promote the consistent application of implementation science theories and frameworks to develop applicable knowledge about how to best support implementation across maternity care settings. We would also advocate for the need to adapt and apply implementation science measures to maternity care. Efforts to synthesize findings across studies that use the same frameworks, theories, and/or measures will be a great asset in advancing implementation science for maternity care. While there remains much work to be done to support implementation in maternity care, ensuring that we learn from all prior research will allow us to more effectively and efficiently target future efforts for the greatest benefit of maternity patients.

Acknowledgements

None

Declarations

N/A
We consent to this being published.

Competing interests

N/A
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Kara N, Firestone R, Kalita T, Gawande AA, Kumar V, Kodkany B, et al. The Betterbirth program: pursuing effective adoption and sustained use of the WHO safe childbirth checklist through coaching-based implementation in Uttar Pradesh. India. Glob Heal Sci Pract. 2017;5(2):232–43. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00411.CrossRef Kara N, Firestone R, Kalita T, Gawande AA, Kumar V, Kodkany B, et al. The Betterbirth program: pursuing effective adoption and sustained use of the WHO safe childbirth checklist through coaching-based implementation in Uttar Pradesh. India. Glob Heal Sci Pract. 2017;5(2):232–43. https://​doi.​org/​10.​9745/​GHSP-D-16-00411.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Hirschhorn LR, Semrau K, Kodkany B, et al. Learning before leaping: integration of an adaptive study design process prior to initiation of BetterBirth, a large-scale randomized controlled trial in Uttar Pradesh, India. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0309-y Hirschhorn LR, Semrau K, Kodkany B, et al. Learning before leaping: integration of an adaptive study design process prior to initiation of BetterBirth, a large-scale randomized controlled trial in Uttar Pradesh, India. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1). doi:https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13012-015-0309-y
5.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Vamos CA, Cantor A, Thompson EL, Detman LA, Bronson EA, Phelps A, et al. The Obstetric Hemorrhage Initiative (OHI) in Florida: the role of intervention characteristics in influencing implementation experiences among multidisciplinary hospital staff. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(10):2003–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-016-2020-2.CrossRefPubMed Vamos CA, Cantor A, Thompson EL, Detman LA, Bronson EA, Phelps A, et al. The Obstetric Hemorrhage Initiative (OHI) in Florida: the role of intervention characteristics in influencing implementation experiences among multidisciplinary hospital staff. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(10):2003–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10995-016-2020-2.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Letter to the editor of implementation science in response to “Implementation Science in maternity care, A scoping Review” by Dadich, Piper, and Coates (2021)
verfasst von
Rachel Blankstein Breman
Rebecca Feldman Hamm
Jennifer A. Callaghan-Koru
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2021
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Implementation Science / Ausgabe 1/2021
Elektronische ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01129-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2021

Implementation Science 1/2021 Zur Ausgabe