Cited by 31Health Policy Implementation ScienceGlobal Maternal and Child HealthDelphi Technique in Research

Exploring the effect of implementation and context on a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial of a vital sign triage device in routine maternity care in low-resource settings

Open access
on behalf of the CRADLE Trial Collaborative Group, Vousden, Nicola, Lawley, Elodie, Seed, Paul T., Gidiri, Muchabayiwa Francis, Charantimath, Umesh, Makonyola, Grace, Brown, Adrian +10 more·2019·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interventions aimed at reducing maternal mortality are increasingly complex. Understanding how complex interventions are delivered, to whom, and how they work is key in ensuring their rapid scale-up. We delivered a vital signs triage intervention into routine maternity care in eight low- and middle-income countries with the aim of reducing a composite outcome of morbidity and mortality. This was a pragmatic, hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial. In this study, we present the results of the mixed-methods process evaluation. The aim was to describe implementation and local context and integrate results to determine whether differences in the effect of the intervention across sites could be explained. METHODS: The duration and content of implementation, uptake of the intervention and its impact on clinical management were recorded. These were integrated with interviews (n = 36) and focus groups (n = 19) at 3 months and 6-9 months after implementation. In order to determine the effect of implementation on effectiveness, measures were ranked and averaged across implementation domains to create a composite implementation strength score and then correlated with the primary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 61.1% (n = 2747) of health care providers were trained in the intervention (range 16.5% to 89.2%) over a mean of 10.8 days. Uptake and acceptability of the intervention was good. All clusters demonstrated improved availability of vital signs equipment. There was an increase in the proportion of women having their blood pressure measured in pregnancy following the intervention (79.2% vs. 97.6%; OR 1.30 (1.29-1.31)) and no significant change in referral rates (3.7% vs. 4.4% OR 0.89; (0.39-2.05)). Availability of resources and acceptable, effective referral systems influenced health care provider interaction with the intervention. There was no correlation between process measures within or between domains, or between the composite score and the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation has successfully described the quantity and quality of implementation. Variation in implementation and context did not explain differences in the effectiveness of the intervention on maternal mortality and morbidity. We suggest future trials should prioritise in-depth evaluation of local context and clinical pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: ISRCTN41244132 . Registered on 2 Feb 2016.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13012-019-0885-3

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
on behalf of the CRADLE Trial Collaborative Group, Vousden, N., Lawley, E., Seed, P. T., Gidiri, M. F., Charantimath, U., Makonyola, G., Brown, A., Yadeta, L., Best, R., Chinkoyo, S., Vwalika, B., Nakimuli, A., Ditai, J., Greene, G., Chappell, L. C., Sandall, J., & Shennan, A. H.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Zimbabwe (ZW)
  • Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College (IN)
  • University of Zambia (ZM)
  • Mulago Hospital (UG)
  • Mbale Hospital (UG)
Corresponding author
Vousden, Nicola
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2019-04-18
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
38-38
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2946475705
Cited by
31
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Medical Research Council, Department of Biotechnology India and Department of International Development (MR/N006240/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
maternal mortality, obstetric care, resource-limited settings, complex interventions, implementation process evaluation, intervention uptake, health professions education, referral systems, maternal morbidity
MeSH terms
Implementation Science, Adult, Blood Pressure Determination, Developing Countries, Equipment Design, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Maternal Mortality, Pregnancy, Triage, Program Evaluation, Program Development, Process Assessment, Health Care, Focus Groups, Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced, Vital Signs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review