Globally, there is a shift in the maternal, newborn, and child health agenda from
an exclusive focus on survival to the inclusion of drivers for thriving and transformation.1,
2 This shift is in line with the third Sustainable Development Goal – ensuring healthy
lives and promoting wellbeing for all at all ages – and the new Global Strategy for
Women's, Children's and Adolescents’ Health (2016–2030).3 Through research and the
development of norms and standards, the World Health Organization (WHO) is supporting
this global agenda by outlining a vision for high‐quality care for all pregnant women
and their newborns, throughout pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period.2 As
part of this effort, WHO released new recommendations on antenatal care for a positive
pregnancy experience in 2016,4 and recently published new recommendations on intrapartum
care, again stressing the importance of a positive experience during childbirth.5
These recommendations go beyond the prevention of death and morbidity, as they encompass
a person‐centred philosophy that includes optimising health and wellbeing for the
woman and her baby.
Why do we need to revisit intrapartum care?
Worldwide, about 140 million women give birth every year.6 The majority of these women
and their babies are healthy and are considered to be at low risk of developing complications
during labour. At the same time, for the minority of women and babies who experience
complications, serious morbidity or even death can occur. Most maternity care policies
recognise that all women and their babies should receive evidence‐based, equitable,
compassionate, and respectful care throughout labour and childbirth; however, the
reality experienced by women and babies in a multitude of settings – rich or poor
– is less than positive, and access to essential interventions is not universal.
Despite decades of research, the concept of normality during labour and childbirth
is not standardised. Current labour practices have seen a rapid escalation in the
application of interventions to initiate, accelerate, monitor, or terminate the physiological
process of labour, all with the aim of improving birth outcomes. Recent studies suggest
that the benchmark for assessing normal labour progression, which was derived from
studies conducted over 60 years ago, may not be appropriate for clinical decision
making for individual women.7, 8 Although unnecessary labour interventions are generally
more common in middle‐ and high‐income settings,9 the routine use of ineffective and
potentially harmful labour practices are also widespread in resource‐limited settings,
with the consequent misallocation of scarce resources and a further widening of the
equity gap.10, 11, 12 On the other hand, failure to employ effective labour interventions
when needed is also a recognised contributor to health inequities and poor quality
of care during childbirth.9
In addition, the high level of mistreatment reported by women during facility‐based
childbirth, and its implications for a woman's birth experience, is of significant
concern.13 Accounts of non‐dignified and abusive care are not region‐ or culture‐specific,
as they have been reported by women in low‐, middle‐, and high‐income settings.14
Models of intrapartum care vary considerably across settings. Depending on the healthcare
system, intrapartum care service provision can be led by midwives, family doctors,
or obstetricians, for example. Shared models of care also exist, and schemes like
case‐loading models explicitly share professional care decisions with the woman herself;
however, maternity care models are often less clear cut, as they are configured around
the available human and material resources, place of birth, and philosophies of care.
Although the above examples could be implemented efficiently in countries with adequate
resources and well‐functioning healthcare provider training programmes, they are often
challenging to implement in resource‐poor countries. Although there is promising evidence
around a midwife‐led continuity of care model, it remains unclear which model is best
(if any) in terms of the effects on key birth outcomes, and how feasible it is to
implement the various models in different resource settings. These unresolved issues
around intrapartum care call for a rethink in the fundamental approach to service
provision during labour and childbirth.
The WHO intrapartum care model
However the service is designed and delivered, there are non‐negotiable elements of
good‐quality maternity care.2 Therefore, any strategy to improve the quality of service
delivery during labour and childbirth would require a comprehensive approach that
responds to all quality of care domains. The successful implementation of such a maternity
service requires a model of care that gives priority to the delivery of evidence‐based
practices that are acceptable to women, and which can feasibly be implemented with
local adaptation. Crucially, what matters to women during labour and childbirth needs
to be understood and integrated into such model of care, in order to ensure effective
service design and uptake.
The synthesis of evidence supporting the development of the 2018 WHO recommendations
on intrapartum care showed that women want a ‘positive childbirth experience’ that
fulfils or exceeds their prior personal and sociocultural beliefs and expectations.5,
15 This includes giving birth to a healthy baby in a clinically and psychologically
safe environment, with continuous emotional support from a birth companion and technically
competent clinical staff. The concept was informed by the evidence that most women
want a physiological labour and birth, and to have a sense of personal achievement
and control through their involvement in decision making, even when medical interventions
are needed or wanted. This evidence review informed the WHO guideline panel's decision
to recommend selected labour and birth practices that can help women meet their goal
of a positive childbirth experience.
The principles guiding the 2018 guideline, which includes 56 evidence‐based recommendations,
is presented in Box1. Individual recommendations and how they affect a woman's fulfilment
of a positive childbirth experience are presented in Table 1. This approach was based
on the notion that through the provision of effective practices that support, and
through the avoidance of ineffective and potentially harmful practices that hinder,
a woman's own capabilities during the birthing process, women can be supported to
achieve their desired physical, emotional, and psychological outcomes.
Box 1
Guiding principles for intrapartum care
Labour and childbirth should be individualised and woman‐centred
No intervention should be implemented without a clear medical indication
Only interventions that serve an immediate purpose and have been proven to be beneficial
should be promoted
A clear objective that a positive childbirth experience for the woman, the newborn,
and her family should be at the forefront of labour and childbirth care at all times
Table 1
Individual WHO recommendations and how they impact on a positive childbirth experience
Practices recommended (facilitators)
Positive childbirth experience
Practices not recommended (hindrances)
Intermittent fetal heart auscultation with a Doppler device or Pinard stethoscope;
uterotonics (oxytocin or misoprostol) and controlled cord traction for the prevention
of postpartum haemorrhage; delayed neonatal cord clamping; regular postnatal maternal
assessment of vaginal bleeding, uterine tonus, and vital signs; intramuscular vitamin
K, skin‐to‐skin contact; breastfeeding; delayed newborn bathing; postnatal maternal
and newborn care for at least 24 hours in facility
Healthy mother and baby (including prevention and treatment of risks, and avoidance
of death)
Routine clinical pelvimetry and cardiotocography at labour admission; continuous cardiotocography
during labour; routine vaginal cleansing with chlorhexidine during labour; sustained
uterine massage after birth; routine oral or nasal suction for babies with clear amniotic
fluid; routine antibiotics for uncomplicated birth
Active phase starts at 5‐cm dilatation and continues for up to 12 h and 10 h; duration
of second stage up to 3 h and 2 h; for nulliparous and parous women, respectively
‘Physiological labour and birth’ (without medical interventions)
Use of cervical dilatation threshold of 1 cm/h for the assessment of normal labour
progression; interventions to accelerate or terminate labour before 5‐cm dilatation;
perineal shaving and enema at labour admission; active management of labour; routine
amniotomy, early amniotomy and early oxytocin, antispasmodics, intravenous fluids,
and oxytocin for women with epidural for preventing ‘delay’ in labour; routine or
liberal episiotomy; manual fundal pressure for second stage
Respectful maternity care; effective communication; 4‐hourly vaginal examination;
pain relief (e.g. relaxation, manual techniques, opioids, and epidural); oral fluids
and food intake, adoption of mobility, and upright position during first stage; comfortable
birth position of choice regardless of epidural use, delayed pushing in women with
epidural, supportive perineal techniques to reduce perineal trauma in second stage
Desire to be in control (including preserving maternal self‐esteem, competence, and
autonomy, and sense of personal achievement and involvement in decision making)
Continuous cardiotocography; active management of labour; routine episiotomy; manual
fundal pressure for second stage
Companion of choice, effective communication; continuity of care
Emotional support of a labour and birth companion
Respectful maternity care; effective communication; continuity of care
Sensitive, caring, kind, skilled, and competent staff
Postnatal care for at least 24 hours
Clinically and psychologically safe environment
Discharge prior to 24 hours
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
It is unlikely that any of the recommended practices can individually achieve the
overall goal of a positive childbirth experience for the woman. The use of labour
practices that are not focused towards the same end point can in fact have opposing
effects, with no net beneficial outcome. For instance, the potential for labour companionship
to increase the likelihood of spontaneous vaginal birth (with an absolute effect of
54 more per 1000), reduce the likelihood of caesarean section (with 36 fewer per 1000),
and reduce the negative rating of the birth experience (with 55 fewer per 1000),14
to the extent observed in the systematic review included in the guideline, could be
diminished if a hospital protocol dictates that cervical dilatation progressing at
less than 1 cm/hour warrants intervention to expedite labour or a caesarean section.
By contrast, the implementation of the principles outlined above, which allows for
a rate of labour progression slower than 1 cm/hour, and encourages mobility and oral
hydration, with the support from a companion of choice, could have synergistic effects
that lead to a much more positive childbirth experience.
Within this context, WHO envisions intrapartum care as a platform to provide pregnant
women with respectful, individualized, woman‐centred, and effective clinical and non‐clinical
practices to optimize birth outcomes for the woman and her baby, by skilled healthcare
providers in a well‐functioning healthcare system. To achieve this, the WHO proposes
a model of intrapartum care that places the woman and her baby at the centre of care
provision, and subscribes to all domains of quality of care (Figure 1). It is based
on the understanding that care during labour and childbirth can only be supportive
of a woman's goal when synergistic evidence‐based components are provided together.
It acknowledges the differences across settings in terms of existing models of care,
and is sufficiently flexible for adoption without disrupting the current organisation
of care and human resources.
Figure 1
Schematic representation of the WHO intrapartum care model.
Healthcare systems should aim to implement this model of care in its entirety to empower
all women to access the type of woman‐centred care that they want and need, and to
provide a sound foundation for such care, in accordance with a human rights‐based
approach. The WHO and partners are currently working on tools to support the implementation
of this model at the country level, and will continue to advance research and guidance
across the continuum of care to ensure that quality care within a strengthened healthcare
system is a vision within the grasp of all countries.
Disclosure of interests
None declared. Completed disclosure of interests form available to view online as
supporting information.
Contribution of authorship
The idea of this commentary was conceived by OTO. OTO, ÖT, MB, TAL, AP, SD, and AMG
all contributed to the content and development of the article. OTO and ÖT wrote the
first draft. All authors reviewed and agreed to the final version of this article,
and approved it for publication.
Details of ethics approval
No ethics approval required.
Funding
None.
Supporting information
Click here for additional data file.
Click here for additional data file.
Click here for additional data file.
Click here for additional data file.
Click here for additional data file.
Click here for additional data file.
Click here for additional data file.