Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Sep 15;21(9):e0350665. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350665

Monitoring childbirth and immediate postpartum care quality: A scoping review of indicators in high-income countries

M Allison Warren 1,#, Dayana Hamparsoumian 1,#, Elsa Lorthe 1,2, Gilles Cattani 1, Francisca Barcos Munoz 3, David Baud 4, Caroline Daelemans 5,6, Pauline De Vries 4, Manuella Epiney 5,6, Emanuela Gerhard 7, Markus Hodel 8,9, Marzia Loghi 10, Begoña Martinez De Tejada 6, Raegan MacSTravic 11, Beatrice Mosimann 12, Marianne Philibert 2, Tonia A Rihs 13, Anne Steiner 7, Laurent Gaucher 1,14, Thomas Desplanches 1,14,*
Editor: Umberto Simeoni15
PMCID: PMC13577461  PMID: 42743223

Abstract

Background

Most maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality occur during childbirth and the immediate postnatal period. In high-income countries, where most births occur in maternity units, systematic monitoring of care quality is essential to improve safety and reduce preventable adverse outcomes.

Objective

To identify maternal and neonatal indicators of quality-of-care at childbirth and immediate postnatal period in high-income countries, and to assess their level of validity.

Methods

This scoping review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in April 2024 (updated March 2025) in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Eligible studies included literature from high-income countries reporting quality-of-care indicators. Indicators were extracted as reported and consolidated: those with aligned definitions were clustered into standardised indicators and subsequently grouped into broader constructs reflecting key dimensions of care. Indicators were grouped into four domains (access, structure, process, and outcome) and evaluated using a structured validity scoring system. Indicators were classified as high-validity if they included a clear definition (with specified numerator and denominator) and achieved a validity score of 3 or 4 on a 0–4 scale.

Results

Eighty-four studies were included. In total, 981 individual indicators were identified; 546 were clearly defined and consolidated into 214 standardised indicators and 61 indicator constructs. Most focused on outcomes (n = 253, 46.3%) and processes (n = 243, 44.5%), with substantial heterogeneity in definitions. Fewer indicators addressed structure (n = 47, 8.6%) and access (n = 3, 0.6%). Nearly one third of all indicators demonstrated high-validity, mainly within outcome and process domains.

Conclusions

This review identified a large set of quality-of-care indicators, reflecting sustained efforts to monitor care around childbirth. However, heterogeneity in definitions and variable validation limit comparability and routine use. These findings highlight the need for greater validation and standardisation of indicators, followed by the prioritisation of high-validity measures to support meaningful quality monitoring and improvement.

Introduction

In high-income countries, nearly all births occur in maternity units and are attended by skilled health professionals, with overall good health outcomes [1]. Although maternal and neonatal mortality is rare [2–4], more than half of maternal deaths are considered preventable [5]. Maternal and neonatal morbidity, however, remain major concerns, particularly severe maternal morbidity related to postpartum haemorrhage and serious neonatal complications that continue to affect births even in high-income settings [6–9].

Interventions during childbirth play a crucial role in safeguarding maternal and neonatal health when appropriately indicated. Caesarean delivery is among the most frequently performed obstetric interventions worldwide [10,11]. However, its use illustrates a broader paradox in obstetric care: both underuse and overuse are associated with adverse outcomes. In line with World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations [12], very low caesarean rates are associated with increased maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity [13,14], whereas excessively high rates are associated to higher maternal morbidity. Similar patterns have been observed for other common intrapartum interventions, with wide variations in use across high-income countries reflecting unwarranted differences in practice [15]. These findings highlight the need for regular monitoring of obstetric care.

To address these challenges, the concept of quality of care provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating and improving maternal and newborn health services. Perinatal quality of care refers to the degree to which health services during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period maximize the likelihood of optimal health outcomes and adhere to professional standards and evidence-based practice [16,17]. It encompasses five domains; access, structure, process, patient experience, and outcomes [18], in line with the Donabedian model [19].

Monitoring perinatal indicators is essential for developing effective strategies to improve quality of care. Indicators can be defined as “standardised, evidence-based measures of health care quality that can be used with readily available hospital inpatient administrative data to measure and track clinical performance and outcome“ [17]. In high-income settings, the widespread availability of large medico-administrative databases provides an opportunity to systematically monitor such indicators.

While quality indicators are relevant throughout pregnancy and the postpartum period [20], the time of childbirth is particularly critical for assessing care quality, as it concentrates the highest risks for both mother and newborn [6,21,22]. This has led to the development of numerous indicators intended to monitor care during labour and the immediate postnatal period.

However, beyond data availability, indicators must be validated before risk-adjusted standardisation and benchmarking. This requirement is particularly important for cross-country comparisons, which are valuable for rare but serious outcomes such as maternal and neonatal mortality, yet remain constrained by variations in data completeness and indicator validation across health systems [23]. At the local level, maternity units require specific indicators that more accurately reflect the quality of routine care. These should capture events that are sufficiently frequent to allow regular analysis, be reproducible across institutions, and be sensitive to changes in practice over time, making continuous quality monitoring both feasible and sustainable.

This study aimed to identify indicators developed to assess the quality of maternal and neonatal care during childbirth and the immediate postnatal period in high-income countries, and to assess their level of validity.

Materials and methods

Design

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [24] (S1 File).

Conceptual framework

The study was guided by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine (SMFM) [18] framework. Indicators were organised into four domains: access, structure, process, and outcome, to provide a clear taxonomy for classification and to support systematic analysis of indicators.

Eligibility criteria and types of studies

We followed the JBI methodology and applied the Population–Concept–Context (PCC) framework to define eligibility criteria and guide the search strategy. The review focused on: (1) Population, covering maternal and neonatal care during labour, birth, and the early postnatal period; (2) Concept, defined as quality of care indicators; and (3) Context, limited to high-income countries as classified by the World Bank [25].

Studies reporting at least one indicator assessing the quality of maternal and/or neonatal care during labour, birth, or within the first seven days postpartum were eligible for inclusion. No restrictions were applied on sample size, year of publication, or data source, but only English-language full texts were considered. Studies were excluded if they focused on populations, outcomes, or time periods outside the scope of this review, or if the indicator related exclusively to phases of care other than childbirth and the immediate postpartum period. Publications were also excluded if the study design was not suitable for data extraction (commentaries, protocols, reviews, conference abstracts, and case reports or case series).

Search strategy and screening processes

To identify all relevant studies, a systematic search was conducted on 19 April 2024, using the following electronic bibliographic databases: Medline (via PubMed), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, and Web of Science. The search strategy was developed in consultation with subject experts and the academic liaison librarian of the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland in Geneva, refined through multiple discussions, and then executed across the selected databases. The electronic search strategy was developed in accordance with the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) 2015 Guideline Statement. Controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings) and free-text keywords, including truncations, were combined to capture each concept comprehensively (S2 File). Searches were conducted in titles, abstracts, and keywords using Boolean and proximity operators as appropriate. On 24 March 2025, an update was conducted to check for additional potential articles.

All references were imported into EndNote library version X9 for de-duplication and exported to the Rayyan platform. Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. Full texts of relevant studies were then retrieved and reviewed for eligibility. Discrepancies at any stage were resolved through discussion, with adjudication by a third reviewer when necessary. Studies were excluded according to the predefined eligibility criteria described above. Reasons for exclusion at the full-text screening stage are reported in the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig 1). Reference lists of included articles were also screened to identify additional relevant studies (Fig 1). Manual searches of national and international indicator databases from high-income countries were initially conducted in April 2024 and updated in March 2025, based on the World Bank classification [25]. Searches were performed using the Google search engine with the search term “maternal and neonatal quality-of-care health indicators”, with a particular focus on national organizations responsible for developing or reporting maternal and neonatal quality-of-care indicators. Article characteristics were summarised by country, data source (e.g., medico-administrative, medical records), and reported methodology (e.g., validation study, consensus panel).

Fig 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of the study selection process.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Flow diagram illustrating the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of studies included in this scoping review.

Data extraction, classification and validity of indicators

Indicators were systematically extracted from each resource, compiling all available data, including indicator name, definition, numerator, and denominator. Indicators based on patient-reported experience and outcome measures (PREM or PROM) were not extracted because they were outside the scope of this review. All extracted indicators were verified for accuracy and completeness. Only complete indicators (defined as those with a name, definition, numerator, and denominator) were included in the analysis.

To enable systematic analysis of underlying concepts, a stepwise funnel approach was used to organize the indicators. First, all individual indicators were extracted and reviewed as originally reported. Individual indicators with closely aligned definitions and overlapping terminology were then clustered into standardised indicator labels (hereafter referred to as standardised indicators), representing sets of indicators that measured essentially the same concept using comparable definitions. These standardised indicators constituted the primary unit of analysis.

Next, related standardised indicators were aggregated into indicator constructs, which were subsequently organized within broader conceptual categories reflecting major dimensions of care (e.g., indicators of third- or fourth-degree tears grouped under the construct Perineal tears).

To provide a structured assessment of the level of validity of the identified quality indicators, we adapted the validity scale from a previous systematic review [8]. Expert consensus methods (e.g., Delphi panels), which are widely used in quality indicator development, were not adequately represented in the original scoring system. We therefore expanded the scale to better reflect these approaches. Thus, the revised scoring system was as follows: 0 = no validation information; 1 = selected by authors with described methods; 2 = based on expert consensus with methods; 3 = used in prior research (e.g., a pilot study validating indicators from an expert panel); 4 = validated by national/international authority. This approach allowed reproducible assessment and comparison of indicator validity across studies. Complete indicators with validity scores ≥3 were classified as high-validity indicators and considered to have stronger measurement properties, allowing comparison of validity patterns across domains and publication periods.

Results

Search and screening outcomes

The initial search yielded 2,718 articles. After removing duplicates, 2,085 articles were screened in Rayyan, resulting in 153 articles retained at the title-abstract stage. Following full-text screening, 72 articles were included. Four additional articles were identified from bibliographies and 15 from national or international indicator databases, of which 11 were included. The updated search additionally identified 212 articles; 3 underwent full-text screening, with 1 included. In total, 84 articles were included for data extraction (Fig 1). These studies are cited in References [9,17,20,26–106].

Characteristics of studies

The 84 included articles span 1989–2025, with 5 published before 2000 and 19 since 2020 (S1 Table). Studies covered 14 countries plus two multinational sources. Nearly one-third originated from the Unites States of America (USA), while European studies contributed the largest share with 36 articles providing 443 indicators – almost half of all extracted indicators, with the Netherlands (17%) and France (11%) providing a significant amount of the overall indicators. Most articles (52%, n = 44) used medico-administrative databases, 18% (n = 15) relied on data extracted from medical records, and 30% (n = 25) reported no patient data. Validation studies represented 21% (n = 18), while consensus studies accounted for 27% (n = 23), and 51% (n = 43) were observational studies (S1 Table).

Overview of extracted indicators

From the 84 included articles, a total of 981 individual indicators were extracted and recorded as originally reported. After exclusion of socio-demographic (n = 26, 2.7%) (S2 Table) and incomplete indicators (n = 409, 41.7%) (S3 Table), 546 (55.7%) complete indicators were retained for analysis, of which 134 were reported only once across the included sources. Using the stepwise funnel approach, these indicators were organised into 61 indicator constructs and 214 standardised indicators.

By domain, indicators were classified as outcome (n = 253, 46.3%), process (n = 243, 44.5%), structure (n = 47, 8.6%), or access (n = 3, 0.6%) (See the complete list in S3 File: Perinatal Care Quality Indicators).

The 253 outcome indicators were grouped into 36 indicators constructs, and 94 standardised indicators (S4, S5, S6 Tables). Mortality was a prominent theme, comprising 46 indicators (18.2%) across maternal, neonatal, and foetal populations. In addition, maternal and neonatal morbidity outcome indicators were identified, including severe maternal morbidity (n = 19), obstetric trauma (n = 13), infection (n = 10), prematurity (n = 9), neonatal asphyxia (n = 4), and ICU (n = 7)/ NICU admission (n = 9). Indicators relating to perineal tears deserve special mention, as 42 indicators were extracted on this construct alone. Three composite indicators integrating maternal and neonatal outcomes were also reported, including the Adverse Outcome Index and related severity scores (S6 Table). Overall, significant variability in definitions and operationalisation was observed across outcome concepts.

The 243 process indicators were aligned under 20 indicator constructs, containing 82 standardised indicators (S7, S8, S9 Tables). Maternal process indicators mainly reflected intrapartum care, including labour onset (n = 13) and management (n = 19), pain relief (n = 5), and mode of delivery (n = 98), with caesarean section (n = 65) emerging as one of the most extensively developed process indicators. A substantial proportion also focused on postpartum management, particularly prevention (n = 11) and management (n = 27) of postpartum haemorrhage, blood transfusion (n = 7), and post-caesarean care (n = 7). Additional maternal process indicators addressed prematurity-related care (n = 6), and maternal screening practices (n = 4) (S7 Table).

Neonatal process indicators (n = 12) were all unique and mainly addressed immediate postnatal care, including delivery room resuscitation, respiratory support, and essential preventive treatments. Additional indicators covered evidence-based therapies for preterm or high-risk infants and neonatal screening practices (S8 Table).

Quality of care indicators relating to both mothers and their neonates focused on infant feeding (n = 14) and skin-to-skin contact (n = 2) (S9 Table).

The 47 structure and 3 access indicators were organised into 6 indicator constructs (Organisation, Evaluation, Resources, Communication, Labour management, and Counselling on mode of delivery (S10 Table)) and 39 standardised indicators, of which 32 were unique.

Validity of extracted indicators

Overall, 278 indicators met the criteria for high-validity, defined as complete indicators with a validity score ≥3, representing 29.1% of all identified indicators (278/955). Among these, 132 indicators (13.8%) had a validity score of 3 and 146 (15.3%) had a score of 4.

Among complete indicators, the proportion of high-quality indicator was 50.9%. High-validity indicators were predominantly observed in the outcome and process domains. In contrast, only a small number of structure indicators and no access indicators reached the high-validity threshold (Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of validity scores by domain in complete indicators.

Domain Total number of indicators Validity score, n (%)
4 3 2 1 0
Outcome 253 95 (17.4) 68 (12.5) 72 (13.2) 16 (2.9) 2 (0.4)
Process 243 47 (8.6) 58 (10.6) 119 (21.8) 17 (3.1) 2 (0.4)
Structure 47 4 (0.7) 6 (1.1) 35 (6.4) 2 (0.4) 0
Access 3 0 0 3 (0.6) 0 0
Total 546 146 (26.7) 132 (24.2) 229 (41.9) 35 (6.4) 4 (0.7)
Open in a new tab

Discussion

In this scoping review, we identified a large and heterogeneous set of quality of care indicators developed to assess maternal and neonatal care during childbirth and the immediate postnatal period in high-income countries. Using a stepwise funnel approach, 546 complete individual indicators were grouped into 214 standardised indicators with closely aligned definitions and aggregated into 61 indicator constructs representing key dimensions of perinatal quality of care. Most indicators focused on health outcomes and care processes, whereas structure and access indicators were less frequently represented. Nearly one third of all indicators demonstrated a high level of validity, mainly within outcome and process domains. These findings reflect sustained efforts to monitor care during childbirth and early postpartum but also reveal substantial variation in indicator definitions, levels of validation and scope.

Our findings extend previous work by providing an updated synthesis specifically focused on the intrapartum and immediate postnatal periods. In 2018, a scoping review compiled current indicators from selected global multi-stakeholder initiatives to support harmonized monitoring of maternal and newborn health and identified 140 indicators [108]. A subsequent systematic review published in 2019 examined 87 indicators across the maternal and child (up to age 18) continuum of care using scientific literature, indicator sets, and grey literature, but was limited to publications from 2012 to 2016 [109]. By consolidating the evidence from high-income countries without time constraints, our review provides an updated and detailed overview of quality of care indicators at the time of birth.

In addition to the large number of available indicators, our results underscore the presence of major methodological challenges. Multiple operational definitions frequently coexist for the same underlying concept, affecting core measurement elements. This heterogeneity limits comparability across settings and limits the formation of broad agreement among stakeholders. Although consensus-based approaches have been proposed to address these issues [68,76,110], the growing number of indicators may hinder the feasibility of standardisation. Also, the breadth of high-validity indicators identified in this review highlights the need to move from compilation towards prioritisation. Establishing a core set of indicators requires explicit consideration of the level at which they are intended to be used – whether for international benchmarking, national monitoring, or centre-level quality improvement. It also requires assessing their feasibility, particularly when they are derived from existing or routinely collected data. These considerations are central to ensuring that consensus-driven indicator selection is both methodologically robust and operationally viable.

Regional differences in healthcare systems, policy priorities, and data infrastructures may also influence the development, selection, and implementation of quality indicators. Future research should explore these contextual differences to better understand their impact on the comparability and applicability of quality indicators across high-income countries.

Our findings also highlight the complexity of assessing perinatal quality of care. In many contexts, meaningful assessment requires the combined interpretation of complementary indicators, particularly when practices involve trade-offs between benefits and risks. For example, interpreting episiotomy policies alongside rates of severe perineal tears provides a more nuanced understanding of obstetric practice than either indicator alone [111]. Similarly, our indicator classification underscores the multidimensional nature of care quality for a given clinical topic. Postpartum haemorrhage illustrates this complexity, with indicators spanning care processes (e.g., prevention, obstetric and anaesthesiologic management), structural indicators (e.g., resource availability), and health outcomes (e.g., mortality, severe complications). Together, these dimensions reflect different but complementary facets of care quality that are rarely captured by a single measure. Furthermore, quality assessment at birth is further complicated by the dual consideration of maternal and neonatal outcomes, as interventions beneficial for one may not confer equivalent benefits for the other [107,112]. Future research should emphasise the joint collection and interpretation of complementary indicators within a given clinical theme to reflect the multidimensional nature of routine maternity care.

Indicator quality itself remains a major concern. A substantial proportion (42%) of indicators identified in this review were incompletely reported, lacking the basic elements required for meaningful measurement, including clear definitions and specified numerators or denominators. As a result, these indicators cannot be consistently interpreted or implemented across settings, highlighting important limitations in the current quality indicator literature. Among the indicators identified, assessment of validity highlighted additional limitations, with approximately one third demonstrating high validity. Consistent with previous work [113], these findings highlight the need for clearer validation standards and appropriate validation methods, as well as a shared terminology to support meaningful measurement and comparison of perinatal quality of care.

Finally, this synthesis highlights gaps in the current indicator landscape, as indicators regarding access and structure remain relatively underdeveloped and insufficiently validated. Although these indicators may capture important system-level dimensions of care, their measurement properties and relevance for routine monitoring require further investigation.

Strengths and limitations

This scoping review applied a rigorous methodology to enhance the reliability, transparency, and reproducibility of its findings in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. To support a comprehensive synthesis, extracted indicators were subjected to a multi-dimensional analysis, including thematic grouping, and classification by both population and domain (access, structure, process, and outcome). This approach enabled a structured overview of a large and heterogeneous body of indicators.

Several limitations should nonetheless be acknowledged. Although no protocol was prospectively registered or published for this scoping review, all methodological steps, including the eligibility criteria, search strategy, study selection process, data extraction, and analytical approach, are reported in sufficient detail to support the transparency and reproducibility of the review. Despite a comprehensive search strategy covering four major electronic databases and grey literature sources, it remains possible that some relevant publications were not identified. However, the breadth of sources included and the convergence of indicators across studies suggest that most commonly used quality of care indicators were likely captured. No formal critical appraisal of the included studies was undertaken. Although this is consistent with current methodological guidance for scoping reviews when such an appraisal is not required to address the review objectives [114], it limits the ability to comment on the methodological quality of the included evidence. In addition, as this review also assessed the level of validity of the identified quality indicators, we applied an adapted validity scale based on prior work. This assessment focused on the reported methods used for the development and validation of the identified quality indicators and was therefore dependent on the completeness of reporting in the included publications. More broadly, this limitation reflects a well-recognised challenge in the field. As previously highlighted by Saturno-Hernández et al. [109], fewer than 10% of quality indicators met established criteria for scientific soundness, underscoring the need for more rigorous development, validation, and reporting of quality indicators. Methodologically, we chose to exclude PROMs and PREMs, despite their recognised importance for capturing care quality from the service user’s perspective. Future research should specifically focus on integrating these dimensions into perinatal quality measurement frameworks.

Conclusion

This scoping review has identified a wide range of indicators developed to assess the quality of maternal and neonatal care during childbirth and the immediate postnatal period in high-income countries. Although many indicators focus on clinical outcomes and care processes, their comparability and routine use is limited by substantial heterogeneity in definitions and variable levels of validation. By organising existing indicators into a structured dataset, this review provides a foundation for more consistent and transparent assessment of care quality. Progress in this field will require greater standardisation of indicator definitions, more robust validation, and the prioritisation of high-validity measures. Their context-sensitive implementation in routine maternity care is essential to ensure meaningful and sustainable monitoring and to support the development of a coherent set of core indicators.

Supporting information

S1 File. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

JBI = Joanna Briggs Institute; PRISMA-ScR = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. * Where sources of evidence (see second footnote) are compiled from, such as bibliographic databases, social media 7platforms, and Web sites. † A more inclusive/heterogeneous term used to account for the different types of evidence or data sources (e.g., quantitative and/or qualitative research, expert opinion, and policy documents) that may be eligible in a scoping review as opposed to only studies. This is not to be confused with information sources (see first footnote). ‡ The frameworks by Arksey and O’Malley [6] and Levac and colleagues [7] and the JBI guidance [4,5] refer to the process of data extraction in a scoping review as data charting. § The process of systematically examining research evidence to assess its validity, results, and relevance before using it to inform a decision. This term is used for items 12 and 19 instead of “risk of bias” (which is more applicable to systematic reviews of interventions) to include and acknowledge the various sources of evidence that may be used in a scoping review (e.g., quantitative and/or qualitative research, expert opinion, and policy document).

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s001.docx (107.2KB, docx)
S2 File. Research strategy.

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s002.docx (16.4KB, docx)
S3 File. Final included articles Perinatal Care Quality Indicators.

(HTML)

pone.0350665.s003.html (1.7MB, html)
S1 Table. Characteristics of included studies.

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s004.docx (39.7KB, docx)
S2 Table. Socio-demographic indicators.

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s005.docx (20.8KB, docx)
S3 Table. List of incomplete indicators.

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s006.docx (76.2KB, docx)
S4 Table. List of maternal outcome indicators (N = 132).

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s007.docx (164.6KB, docx)
S5 Table. List of foetal and neonatal outcome indicators (N = 118).

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s008.docx (169.6KB, docx)
S6 Table. List of maternal and neonatal outcome indicators (N=3).

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s009.docx (15.2KB, docx)
S7 Table. List of complete maternal process indicators (N = 210).

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s010.docx (224.2KB, docx)
S8 Table. List of complete neonatal process indicators (N = 12).

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s011.docx (26.2KB, docx)
S9 Table. List of complete maternal and neonatal process indicators (N = 21).

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s012.docx (43.1KB, docx)
S10 Table. List of complete structure and access indicators (N = 50).

(DOCX)

pone.0350665.s013.docx (69.5KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Suzanne Rankin for her careful review of the paper’s language, clarity, and overall readability. Our thanks also to Marie-Thérèse Pugliese, reference librarian, for her essential role in designing and implementing the search strategy, and Ana Castillo Cebollero for her assistance in extracting indicators.

Data Availability

All data required to replicate the findings of this scoping review are available within the manuscript and Supporting information files. The minimal dataset consists of the complete list of included studies and the extracted study-level information used to identify, map, and classify childbirth and immediate postpartum care quality indicators (S1 Table. Characteristics of included studies).

Funding Statement

TD received funding from the Fonds de Recherche Impulsion HES-SO (Grant number 127974) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number PT0043_222882). The funders provided support in the form of salary support for author TD but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. RM is employed by Digital Workplace Squared, IT Skills and Solutions, Geneva, Switzerland. The company provided support in the form of salary for author RM but had no additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the “Author Contributions” section.

References

  • 1.Campbell OMR, Graham WJ, Lancet Maternal Survival Series steering group. Strategies for reducing maternal mortality: getting on with what works. Lancet. 2006;368(9543):1284–99. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69381-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tunçalp Ö, Moller A-B, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6):e323-33. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Liu Y, Kang L, He C, Miao L, Qiu X, Xia W, et al. Neonatal mortality and leading causes of deaths: a descriptive study in China, 2014-2018. BMJ Open. 2021;11(2):e042654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rossen LM, Hoyert DL, Horon I, Branum AM. Trends in maternal mortality rates by state, United States, 2018 to 2023. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2026;234(1):250–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Diguisto C, Saucedo M, Kallianidis A, Bloemenkamp K, Bødker B, Buoncristiano M, et al. Maternal mortality in eight European countries with enhanced surveillance systems: descriptive population based study. BMJ. 2022;379:e070621. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.MBRRACE-UK. Saving lives, improving mothers’ care: lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland confidential enquiries into maternal deaths and morbidity 2019–21. London: MBRRACE-UK; 2023. Available from: https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk/reports#mbrrace-uk-saving-lives-improving-mothers-care-lessons-learned-to-inform-maternity-care-from-the-uk-and-ireland-confidential-enquiries-into-maternal-deaths-and-morbidity-2019-21 [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Patek K, Friedman P. Postpartum hemorrhage-epidemiology, risk factors, and causes. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2023;66(2):344–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.England N, Madill J, Metcalfe A, Magee L, Cooper S, Salmon C, et al. Monitoring maternal near miss/severe maternal morbidity: a systematic review of global practices. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0233697. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233697 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Euro-Peristat. European Perinatal Health Report, 2015-–2019. Euro-Peristat. [cited 2024 Apr 12]. Available from: https://www.europeristat.com/index.php/reports/ephr-2019.html [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148343. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Amyx M, Philibert M, Farr A, Donati S, Smárason AK, Tica V, et al. Trends in caesarean section rates in Europe from 2015 to 2019 using Robson’s Ten Group Classification System: a Euro-Peristat study. BJOG. 2024;131(4):444–54. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17670 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.World Health Organization. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-RHR-15.02 [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, Azad T, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2263–70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349–57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Seijmonsbergen-Schermers AE, van den Akker T, Rydahl E, Beeckman K, Bogaerts A, Binfa L, et al. Variations in use of childbirth interventions in 13 high-income countries: a multinational cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(5):e1003103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.World Health Organization. Quality of care for maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health. Geneva: World Health Organization; [cited 2024 Feb 17]. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/maternal-newborn-child-adolescent-health-and-ageing/quality-of-care [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ QI: Quality Indicator Resources [Internet]; 2024. [cited 2025 Apr 29]. Available from: https://qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/measures/MHI_TechSpec
  • 18.Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Combs CA, Kern-Goldberger A, Bauer ST, Patient Safety and Quality Committee. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine special statement: clinical quality measures in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;230(3):B2–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966;44(3):Suppl:166-206. doi: 10.2307/3348969 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nijagal MA, Wissig S, Stowell C, Olson E, Amer-Wahlin I, Bonsel G, et al. Standardized outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth, an ICHOM proposal. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):953. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3732-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.MBRRACE-UK. State of the nation report [Internet]; 2025. [cited 2025 May 28]. Available from: https://timms.le.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk-perinatal-mortality/surveillance/supporting-materials.html
  • 22.Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J, Lancet Neonatal Survival Steering T. 4 Million neonatal deaths: when? where? why? Lancet. 2005;365(9462):891–900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Philibert M, Gissler M, Zurriaga O, Donati S, Drausnik Z, Heller G, et al. Evaluating perinatal health in Europe: a comparison of routine population birth data sources. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2025;39(5):405–16. doi: 10.1111/ppe.13178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.World Bank Country and Lending Groups. [cited 2025 Aug 13]. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
  • 26.Foglia LM, Nielsen PE, Hemann EA, Walker S, Pates JA, Napolitano PG, et al. Accuracy of the adverse outcome index: an obstetrical quality measure. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015;41(8):370–7. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41048-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gregory KD, Korst LM, Lu MC, Fridman M. AHRQ patient safety indicators: time to include hemorrhage and infection during childbirth. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(3):114–22. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(13)39017-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Holubkov R, Holt VL, Connell FA, LoGerfo JP. Analysis, assessment, and presentation of risk-adjusted statewide obstetrical care data: the StORQS II study in Washington State. Statewide Obstetrics Review and Quality System. Health Serv Res. 1998;33(3 Pt 1):531–48. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.El Haj Ibrahim S, Fridman M, Korst LM, Gregory KD. Anesthesia complications as a childbirth patient safety indicator. Anesth Analg. 2014;119(4):911–7. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ueda K, Sado T, Takahashi Y, Igarashi T, Nakayama T. Applicability of care quality indicators for women with low-risk pregnancies planning hospital birth: a retrospective study of medical records. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12484. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69346-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bottle A, Aylin P. Application of AHRQ patient safety indicators to English hospital data. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18(4):303–8. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2007.026096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Boesveld IC, Hermus MAA, van der Velden-Bollemaat EC, Hitzert M, de Graaf HJ, Franx A, et al. An approach to assessing the quality of birth centres results of the Dutch birth centre study. Midwifery. 2018;66:36–48. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.07.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Grobman WA, Feinglass J, Murthy S. Are the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality obstetric trauma indicators valid measures of hospital safety? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(3):868–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mann S, Pratt S, Gluck P, Nielsen P, Risser D, Greenberg P, et al. Assessing quality obstetrical care: development of standardized measures. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006;32(9):497–505. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(06)32065-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Howell EA, Zeitlin J, Hebert PL, Balbierz A, Egorova N. Association between hospital-level obstetric quality indicators and maternal and neonatal morbidity. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1531–41. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.13381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Crenn-Hébert C, Barasinski C, Debost-Legrand A, Da Costa-Correia C, Rivière O, Fresson J, et al. Can hospital discharge data be used for monitoring indicators associated with postpartum hemorrhages? The HERA multicenter observational study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47(4):145–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.01.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sandin-Bojö A-K, Kvist LJ. Care in labor: a Swedish survey using the Bologna Score. Birth. 2008;35(4):321–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2008.00259.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Baghurst PA. The case for retaining severe perineal tears as an indicator of the quality of obstetric care. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;53(1):3–8. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mesterton J, Lindgren P, Ekenberg Abreu A, Ladfors L, Lilja M, Saltvedt S, et al. Case mix adjustment of health outcomes, resource use and process indicators in childbirth care: a register-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):125. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0921-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Goossens SMTA, Hukkelhoven CWPM, de Vries L, Mol BW, Nijhuis JG, Roumen FJME. Clinical indicators associated with the mode of twin delivery: an analysis of 22,712 twin pairs. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;195:133–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.09.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Romano PS, Yasmeen S, Schembri ME, Keyzer JM, Gilbert WM. Coding of perineal lacerations and other complications of obstetric care in hospital discharge data. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(4):717–25. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000179552.36108.6d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Thompson SM, Nieuwenhuijze MJ, Budé L, de Vries R, Kane Low L. Creating an Optimality Index - Netherlands: a validation study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):100. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1735-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Andersson CB, Flems C, Kesmodel US. The Danish national quality database for births. Clin Epidemiol. 2016;8:595–9. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S99492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kritchevsky SB, Braun BI, Gross PA, Newcomb CS, Kelleher CA, Simmons BP. Definition and adjustment of Cesarean section rates and assessments of hospital performance. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999;11(4):283–91. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/11.4.283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Pyykönen A, Gissler M, Jakobsson M, Petäjä J, Tapper A-M. Determining obstetric patient safety indicators: the differences in neonatal outcome measures between different-sized delivery units. BJOG. 2014;121(4):430–7. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Boesveld IC, Hermus MAA, de Graaf HJ, Hitzert M, van der Pal-de Bruin KM, de Vries RG, et al. Developing quality indicators for assessing quality of birth centre care: a mixed- methods study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):259. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1439-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Patel MS, Rathi B, Tashfeen K, Yarubi MA. Development and implementation of maternity dashboard in regional hospital for quality improvement at ground level: a pilot study. Oman Med J. 2019;34(3):194–9. doi: 10.5001/omj.2019.38 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Melman S, Schoorel ECN, de Boer K, Burggraaf H, Derks JB, van Dijk D, et al. Development and measurement of guidelines-based quality indicators of caesarean section care in the Netherlands: a RAND-modified Delphi procedure and retrospective medical chart review. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0145771. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145771 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Dyess-Nugent P, Bouzid J, Roberson A, Quint-Bouzid M, Nelson DB. Development of a quality indicator to measure urgent requests to the bedside. Nurs Womens Health. 2020;24(6):404–12. doi: 10.1016/j.nwh.2020.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Shinjo D, Ozawa N, Nakadate N, Kanamori Y, Matsumoto K, Noguchi T, et al. Development of a set of quality indicators in paediatric and perinatal care in Japan with a modified Delphi method. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2023;7(1):e002209. doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2023-002209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Soong B, Grimes K, Baade P. The development of clinical indicators--the impact on midwifery practice in Queensland in the future. Aust Coll Midwives Inc J. 1999;12(2):26–31. doi: 10.1016/s1031-170x(99)80019-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Smit M, Sindram SIC, Woiski M, Middeldorp JM, van Roosmalen J. The development of quality indicators for the prevention and management of postpartum haemorrhage in primary midwifery care in the Netherlands. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:194. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bookhart LH, Anstey EH, Kramer MR, Perrine CG, Ramakrishnan U, Young MF. A dose-response relationship found between the Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding indicators and in-hospital exclusive breastfeeding in US hospitals. Birth. 2023;50(4):916–22. doi: 10.1111/birt.12742 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Nair M, Kurinczuk JJ, Knight M. Establishing a national maternal morbidity outcome indicator in england: a population-based study using routine hospital data. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0153370. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Srinivas SK, Fager C, Lorch SA. Evaluating risk-adjusted cesarean delivery rate as a measure of obstetric quality. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(5):1007–13. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d9f4b6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kazandjian VA, Summer SJ. Evaluating the appropriateness of care: a study of cesarean section rates. QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1989;15(7):206–14. doi: 10.1016/s0097-5990(16)30295-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Friedman AM, Ananth CV, Prendergast E, D’Alton ME, Wright JD. Evaluation of third-degree and fourth-degree laceration rates as quality indicators. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(4):927–37. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000720 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hutcheon JA, Lee L, Joseph KS, Kinniburgh B, Cundiff GW. Feasibility of implementing a standardized clinical performance indicator to evaluate the quality of obstetrical care in British Columbia. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19(12):2688–97. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1791-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.de Bruin-Kooistra M, Amelink-Verburg MP, Buitendijk SE, Westert GP. Finding the right indicators for assessing quality midwifery care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24(3):301–10. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzs006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Korst LM, Gregory KD, Lu MC, Reyes C, Hobel CJ, Chavez GF. A Framework for the Development of maternal quality of care indicators. Matern Child Health J. 2005;9(3):317–41. doi: 10.1007/s10995-005-0001-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Woiski MD, Scheepers HC, Liefers J, Lance M, Middeldorp JM, Lotgering FK, et al. Guideline-based development of quality indicators for prevention and management of postpartum hemorrhage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(10):1118–27. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12718 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Korst LM, Fridman M, Friedlich PS, Lu MC, Reyes C, Hobel CJ, et al. Hospital rates of maternal and neonatal infection in a low-risk population. Matern Child Health J. 2005;9(3):307–16. doi: 10.1007/s10995-005-0006-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Bamber JH, Lucas DN, Plaat F, Allin B, Knight M, collaborators for the Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association Quality and Outcomes Working Group. The identification of key indicators to drive quality improvement in obstetric anaesthesia: results of the Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association/National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit collaborative Delphi project. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(5):617–25. doi: 10.1111/anae.14861 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Alfirevic Z, Edwards G, Platt MJ. The impact of delivery suite guidelines on intrapartum care in “standard primigravida”. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;115(1):28–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2003.10.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Gilbert WM, Bliss MC, Johnson A, Farrell W, Gregg L, Swanson C. Improving recording accuracy, transparency, and performance for obstetric quality measures in a community hospital-based obstetrics department. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(6):258–66. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(13)39035-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Walker S, Strandjord TP, Benedetti TJ. In search of perinatal quality outcome measures: 1 hospital’s in-depth analysis of the Adverse Outcomes Index. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(4):336.e1-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Mesterton J, Brommels M, Ladfors L, Lindgren P, Amer-Wåhlin I. Inter-hospital variations in health outcomes in childbirth care in Sweden: a register-based study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2019;31(4):276–82. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzy153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Sibanda T, Fox R, Draycott TJ, Mahmood T, Richmond D, Simms RA. Intrapartum care quality indicators: a systematic approach for achieving consensus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;166(1):23–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.09.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Maga G, Brigante L, Del Bo E, Cappadona R, Daniele MAS, Arrigoni C, et al. The Italian midwifery core outcome set (M-COS) for healthy childbearing women and newborns: development and initial validation study. Midwifery. 2022;108:103292. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2022.103292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Jayaratnam S, Burton A, Connan KF, de Costa C. Maternal “near miss” at Royal Darwin Hospital: an analysis of severe maternal morbidity at an Australian regional tertiary maternity unit. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;56(4):381–6. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12436 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Kesmodel US, Jølving LR. Measuring and improving quality in obstetrics--the implementation of national indicators in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(4):295–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01078.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Sprague AE, Dunn SI, Fell DB, Harrold J, Walker MC, Kelly S, et al. Measuring quality in maternal-newborn care: developing a clinical dashboard. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(1):29–38. doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(15)31045-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Peoples-Sheps MD, Guild PA, Farel AM, Cassady CE, Kennelly J, Potrzebowski PW, et al. Model indicators for maternal and child health: an overview of process, product, and applications. Matern Child Health J. 1998;2(4):241–56. doi: 10.1023/a:1022311524144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Korst LM, Fridman M, Lu MC, Mitchell C, Lawton E, Griffin F, et al. Monitoring childbirth morbidity using hospital discharge data: further development and application of a composite measure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(3):268.e1-268.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Boulkedid R, Sibony O, Bossu-Salvador C, Oury JF, Alberti C. Monitoring healthcare quality in an obstetrics and gynaecology department using a CUSUM chart. BJOG. 2010;117(10):1225–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02632.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Sauvegrain P, Chantry AA, Chiesa-Dubruille C, Keita H, Goffinet F, Deneux-Tharaux C. Monitoring quality of obstetric care from hospital discharge databases: a Delphi survey to propose a new set of indicators based on maternal health outcomes. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0211955. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211955 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Roberts CL, Bell JC, Ford JB, Morris JM. Monitoring the quality of maternity care: how well are labour and delivery events reported in population health data? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2009;23(2):144–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2008.00980.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Kogan MD, Dykton C, Hirai AH, Strickland BB, Bethell CD, Naqvi I, et al. A new performance measurement system for maternal and child health in the United States. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19(5):945–57. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1739-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Florea A, Caughey SS, Westland J, Berckmans M, Kennelly C, Beach C, et al. The Ottawa hospital quality incident notification system for capturing adverse events in obstetrics. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32(7):657–62. doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)34569-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Howell EA, Zeitlin J, Hebert P, Balbierz A, Egorova N. Paradoxical trends and racial differences in obstetric quality and neonatal and maternal mortality. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(6):1201–8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182932238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Zeitlin J, Wildman K, Bréart G, Alexander S, Barros H, Blondel B, et al. PERISTAT: indicators for monitoring and evaluating perinatal health in Europe. Eur J Public Health. 2003;13(3 Suppl):29–37. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/13.suppl_1.29 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Fabricant SP, Opara KN, Paul JV, Blissett G, Rau AR, White JD, et al. The positive predictive value of hospital discharge data for identifying severe maternal morbidity with and without blood transfusion. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2023;49(9):467–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2023.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Smit M, Chan K-LL, Middeldorp JM, van Roosmalen J. Postpartum haemorrhage in midwifery care in the Netherlands: validation of quality indicators for midwifery guidelines. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:397. doi: 10.1186/s12884-014-0397-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Moser D. Quality aspects relating to giving birth in Switzerland: an analysis of quality indicators in inpatient obstetrics from 2013 to 2017. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1009412. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1009412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Pileggi C, Squillace L, Giordano M, Papadopoli R, Bianco A, Pavia M. Quality in perinatal care: applying performance measurement using joint commission on accreditation of healthcare organizations indicators in Italy. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):83. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0722-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Guiguet-Auclair C, Rivière O, Gerbaud L, Vendittelli F. Quality indicators during delivery and the immediate postpartum period: a modified Delphi study. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(6):848. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11060848 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Boulkedid R, Sibony O, Goffinet F, Fauconnier A, Branger B, Alberti C. Quality indicators for continuous monitoring to improve maternal and infant health in maternity departments: a modified Delphi survey of an international multidisciplinary panel. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Bailit JL, Love TE, Dawson NV. Quality of obstetric care and risk-adjusted primary cesarean delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(2):402–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.07.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Rich R, D’Hont T, Murphy KE, Veillard J, Chatwood S. Selecting contextually appropriate performance indicators in a circumpolar context: a modified Delphi approach. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Santos JV, Correia C, Cabral F, Bernardes J, Costa-Pereira A, Freitas A. Should European perinatal indicators be revisited? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(1):85–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.05.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Voerman GE, Calsbeek H, Maassen ITHM, Wiegers TA, Braspenning J. A systematic approach towards the development of a set of quality indicators for public reporting in community-based maternity care. Midwifery. 2013;29(4):316–24. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Clapp MA, James KE, Bates SV, Kaimal AJ. Unexpected term NICU admissions: a marker of obstetrical care quality? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(4):395.e1-395.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Ueda K, Kaso M, Ohtera S, Nakayama T. Updating quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan using current clinical practice guidelines: a modified Delphi method. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e023595. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Havranek MM, Rüter F, Bilger S, Dahlem Y, Oliveira L, Ehbrecht D, et al. Validity of 16 AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to identify in-hospital complications: a medical record review across nine Swiss hospitals. Int J Qual Health Care. 2023;35(4):0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Wagner B, Meirowitz N, Shah J, Nanda D, Reggio L, Cohen P, et al. Comprehensive perinatal safety initiative to reduce adverse obstetric events. J Healthc Qual. 2012;34(1):6–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1945-1474.2011.00134.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Knight H, Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell D, Mahmood T, Templeton A, Kiran A. Development of a suite of indicators for quality improvement in maternity care. BJOG. 2014;121:96–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Lain SJ, Algert CS, Nassar N, Bowen JR, Roberts CL. Incidence of severe adverse neonatal outcomes: use of a composite indicator in a population cohort. Matern Child Health J. 2012;16(3):600–8. doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0797-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Fridman M, Korst LM, Reynen DJ, Nicholas LA, Greene N, Saeb S, et al. Severe maternal morbidity in California hospitals: performance based on a validated multivariable prediction model. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2021;47(11):686–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2021.08.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Pyykönen A, Gissler M, Jakobsson M, Lehtonen L, Tapper A-M. The rate of obstetric anal sphincter injuries in Finnish obstetric units as a patient safety indicator. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;169(1):33–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.01.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.NHS England Digital. UK Maternity Services dashboard. NHS England Digital; 2024. [cited 2025 Apr 29]. Available from: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/child-health-profiles/data#page/1/gid/1938133222 [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Main EK, Abreo A, McNulty J, Gilbert W, McNally C, Poeltler D, et al. Measuring severe maternal morbidity: validation of potential measures. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(5):643.e1-643.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Core Maternity Indicators, Summary. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2024. [cited 2025 Apr 29]. Available from: National Core Maternity Indicators, About - Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Canada PHA of. Perinatal Health Indicators — Canada.ca [Internet]; 2024. [cited 2025 Apr 29]. Available from: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/phi/
  • 104.Maternity Clinical Indicators - Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 18]. Available from: https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/for-health-professionals/data-and-statistics/maternity/maternity-clinical-indicators
  • 105.Joint Commission. Specifications Manual for Joint Commission National Quality Measures [Internet]; 2022. [cited 2025 Apr 29]. Available from: https://manual.jointcommission.org/releases/TJC2022B2/
  • 106.Cundiff GW, Kaur P, Hanley GE, Janssen P. Vaginal uncomplicated delivery rate as a quality indicator compared to cesarean delivery rate: a quantitative analysis of a population database. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2024;46(12):102693. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2024.102693 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Clapp MA, James KE, Bates SV, Kaimal AJ. Patient and hospital factors associated with unexpected newborn complications among term neonates in US hospitals. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1919498. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Moller A-B, Newby H, Hanson C, Morgan A, El Arifeen S, Chou D, et al. Measures matter: a scoping review of maternal and newborn indicators. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0204763. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204763 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Saturno-Hernández PJ, Martínez-Nicolás I, Moreno-Zegbe E, Fernández-Elorriaga M, Poblano-Verástegui O. Indicators for monitoring maternal and neonatal quality care: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2173-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Bunch KJ, Allin B, Jolly M, Hardie T, Knight M. Developing a set of consensus indicators to support maternity service quality improvement: using Core Outcome Set methodology including a Delphi process. BJOG. 2018;125(12):1612–8. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15282 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Houlbracq R, Le Ray C, Blondel B, Lelong N, Chantry AA, Desplanches T. Episiotomies and obstetric anal sphincter injuries following a restrictive episiotomy policy in France: an analysis of the 2010, 2016, and 2021 National Perinatal Surveys. PLoS Med. 2025;22(1):e1004501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Singh M. Heuristics in the delivery room. Science. 2021;374(6565):324–9. doi: 10.1126/science.abc9818 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Benova L, Moller A-B, Hill K, Vaz LME, Morgan A, Hanson C, et al. What is meant by validity in maternal and newborn health measurement? A conceptual framework for understanding indicator validation. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0233969. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Pollock D, Evans C, Menghao Jia R, Alexander L, Pieper D, Brandao de Moraes E. How-to: scoping review? J Clin Epidemiol. 2024;176:111572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Umberto Simeoni

27 May 2026

Dear Dr. Desplanches,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 11 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Umberto Simeoni

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“NO authors have competing interests”

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Digital Workplace Squared, IT Skills and Solutions, Geneva, Switzerland

1.        Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Please include a caption for figure 1.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please take into consideration all the remarks made by Reviewer n°2 about the study methods and statistical analysis.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Interesting study with presentation of a complex topic that requires thoughtful engagement with standardization of criteria and outcomes. Agree that it is difficult to compare outcomes across various healthcare systems especially with mixing of provided medical care versus private insurance.

Reviewer #2: As the statistical reviewer I will focus on methods and reporting. There is not much to comment on in terms of statistics but I do have some suggestions, mainly to properly acknowledge the limitations.

Major

1) The paper largely follows the relevant checklist, but not fully. However, no protocol registration is reported, which limits transparency, and no formal risk‑of‑bias or quality assessment is conducted. The authors do use an adapted validity score, but that is not equivalent to standard critical appraisal. In addition, some reporting details (such as reasons for exclusion and study-level characteristics) are not as complete as they could be. Discuss the first two as limitations (to be fair the quality assessment already is) and be more clear in the text about exclusions.

2) Please describe the manual search of indicator databases in enough detail to ensure reproducibility.

3) another limitation to discuss is the fact around 40% of indicators were incomplete. this may introduce bias in the work.

4) Although studies are drawn from multiple high-income countries, regional differences in indicator development and use are not meaningfully explored.

Minor

1) it is unusual to introduce validity scoring in a scoping review, and this makes the work move towards evaluative synthesis. Perhaps the authors should expand on their reasonging for this.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Sep 15;21(9):e0350665. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350665.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1

9 Jul 2026

Dear Editor,

We sincerely thank the Editors and Reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript. We have revised the article accordingly and addressed all the comments raised.

Editor comments to Author:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We thank the Editor for this comment. We have carefully checked the manuscript against the PLOS ONE style requirements, including the formatting instructions and file naming guidelines.

All necessary modifications have been implemented to ensure full compliance with the journal’s requirements.

2. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

The funding section was removed as requested from the manuscript. Funding details are now provided exclusively in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Thank you for this comment. We have updated both the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections as requested to match and included the grant information.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

We thank the Editor for this comment.

In accordance with PLOS ONE’s data availability requirements, we confirm that all materials necessary to reproduce our scoping review findings are provided within the manuscript and Supporting Information files. Specifically, we have amended the included studies list (S1 Table. Characteristics of included studies) to include the study design and reported data sources.

As this study is a scoping review, the minimal dataset consists of the complete list of included studies and the extracted study-level information used to identify, map, and classify childbirth and immediate postpartum care quality indicators.

The supplementary materials include the complete search strategy, the full list of included studies, and all extracted information required to reproduce the results, tables, and figures reported in the manuscript.

Consequently, we have amended the Data Availability Statement to better specify the minimal dataset supporting this scoping review. The revised statement now reads:

“All data required to replicate the findings of this scoping review are available within the manuscript and Supporting Information files. The minimal dataset consists of the complete list of included studies and the extracted study-level information used to identify, map, and classify childbirth and immediate postpartum care quality indicators (S1 Table. Characteristics of included studies).”

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“NO authors have competing interests”

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Digital Workplace Squared, IT Skills and Solutions, Geneva, Switzerland

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

We thank the Editor for this comment. We have amended the Funding Statement to clarify the funding sources, the role of the funders, and the commercial affiliation of RM with Digital Workplace Squared, IT Skills and Solutions, Geneva, Switzerland.

The Funding Statement has been updated as follows:

“TD received funding from the Fonds de Recherche Impulsion HES-SO (Grant number 127974) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number PT0043_222882). The funders provided support in the form of salary support for author TD but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

“RM is employed by Digital Workplace Squared, IT Skills and Solutions, Geneva, Switzerland. The company provided support in the form of salary for author RM but had no additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. RM contributed to this work independently of her commercial affiliation. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘Author Contributions’ section”.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

We thank the Editor for this important comment. We have the Competing Interests Statement to declare the commercial affiliation and to include the required statement regarding our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

As requested, both revised statements have also been included in the cover letter.

“Dear Editor,

We sincerely thank the Editors and Reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for their constructive comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript accordingly and addressed all comments raised during the review process.

We are pleased to submit the revised version of our manuscript entitled “Monitoring Childbirth and Immediate Postpartum Care Quality: A Scoping Review of Indicators in High-Income Countries” for continued consideration in PLOS ONE.

In addition, we have addressed the editorial requests regarding the Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement, including the commercial affiliation of RM with Digital Workplace Squared, IT Skills and Solutions, Geneva, Switzerland. The updated declarations are provided below.

Funding Statement

TD received funding from the Fonds de Recherche Impulsion HES-SO (Grant number 127974) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number PT0043_222882). The funders provided support in the form of salary support for author TD but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

RM is employed by Digital Workplace Squared, IT Skills and Solutions, Geneva, Switzerland. The company provided support in the form of salary for author RM but had no additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the "Author Contributions" section.

Competing Interests Statement

RM is the owner and operator of Digital Workplace Squared, IT Skills and Solutions, Geneva, Switzerland. This commercial affiliation did not influence the conduct, analysis, or reporting of this study. The authors declare that there are no other competing interests related to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

We hope that these revisions satisfactorily address the editorial requirements, and we thank you for your continued consideration of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Thomas Desplanches”

6. Please include a caption for figure 1.

We have added the caption for Figure 1 as requested (please see page 8 lines 185-187): Fig 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of the study selection process. Flow diagram illustrating the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of studies included in this scoping review.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Captions

The supporting information name and number are required in a caption, and we highly recommend including a one-line title as well. You may also include a legend in your caption, but it is not required. Format your supporting information captions as follows:

S1 Text. Title is strongly recommended. Legend is optional.

In the published article, supporting information files are accessed only through a hyperlink attached to the captions. For this reason, you must list captions at the end of your manuscript file. You may include a caption within the supporting information file itself, as long as that caption is also provided in the manuscript file. Do not submit a separate caption file.

We have added captions for all Supporting Information files at the end of the manuscript according to PLOS ONE formatting requirements (please page 80). We have also renamed the Supporting Information files and updated all in-text citations to ensure consistency with the required format.

Supporting information

S1 File: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

S2 File. Research strategy.

S3 File. Final included articles Perinatal Care Quality Indicators.

S1 Table. Characteristics of included studies.

S2 Table. Socio-demographic indicators.

S3 Table. List of incomplete indicators.

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

This point is not applicable, as no reviewer recommendations to cite specific previously published works were provided.

*************************************

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

Interesting study with presentation of a complex topic that requires thoughtful engagement with standardization of criteria and outcomes. Agree that it is difficult to compare outcomes across various healthcare systems especially with mixing of provided medical care versus private insurance.

Thank you for your review, and your kind comment.

*************************************

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author

As the statistical reviewer I will focus on methods and reporting. There is not much to comment on in terms of statistics but I do have some suggestions, mainly to properly acknowledge the limitations.

Major

1) The paper largely follows the relevant checklist, but not fully. However, no protocol registration is reported, which limits transparency, and no formal risk of bias or quality assessment is conducted. The authors do use an adapted validity score, but that is not equivalent to standard critical appraisal. In addition, some reporting details (such as reasons for exclusion and study-level characteristics) are not as complete as they could be. Discuss the first two as limitations (to be fair the quality assessment already is) and be more clear in the text about exclusions.

We thank the reviewer for these important comments which have helped us improve the manuscript.

We conducted and reported this scoping review in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR checklist, which recommends reporting whether a review protocol exists and, where applicable, providing registration details. As no protocol was prospectively registered or published for this scoping review, we have acknowledged this as a limitation in the revised manuscript. However, all methodological steps, including the eligibility criteria, search strategy, study selection process, data extraction, and analytical approach, are reported in sufficient detail to support the transparency and reproducibility of the review.

To address this comment, we have revised the Strengths and limitations section to include the following statement (please see pages 64, lines 314–318):

"Although no protocol was prospectively registered or published for this scoping review, all methodological steps, including the eligibility criteria, search strategy, study selection process, data extraction, and analytical approach, are reported in sufficient detail to support the transparency and reproducibility of the review."

To address the reviewer's comment regarding the absence of a formal critical appraisal and risk-of-bias asse

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_Reviewers_R1.docx

pone.0350665.s014.docx (39.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Umberto Simeoni

23 Aug 2026

Monitoring childbirth and immediate postpartum care quality: A scoping review of indicators in high-income countries

PONE-D-26-12819R1

Dear Dr. Desplanches,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Umberto Simeoni

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #2: I am satisfied with the authors' responses and the resulting changes to the paper. nothing else to add.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Umberto Simeoni

PONE-D-26-12819R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Desplanches,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS One and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS One Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Umberto Simeoni

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

    JBI = Joanna Briggs Institute; PRISMA-ScR = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. * Where sources of evidence (see second footnote) are compiled from, such as bibliographic databases, social media 7platforms, and Web sites. † A more inclusive/heterogeneous term used to account for the different types of evidence or data sources (e.g., quantitative and/or qualitative research, expert opinion, and policy documents) that may be eligible in a scoping review as opposed to only studies. This is not to be confused with information sources (see first footnote). ‡ The frameworks by Arksey and O’Malley [6] and Levac and colleagues [7] and the JBI guidance [4,5] refer to the process of data extraction in a scoping review as data charting. § The process of systematically examining research evidence to assess its validity, results, and relevance before using it to inform a decision. This term is used for items 12 and 19 instead of “risk of bias” (which is more applicable to systematic reviews of interventions) to include and acknowledge the various sources of evidence that may be used in a scoping review (e.g., quantitative and/or qualitative research, expert opinion, and policy document).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s001.docx (107.2KB, docx)
    S2 File. Research strategy.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s002.docx (16.4KB, docx)
    S3 File. Final included articles Perinatal Care Quality Indicators.

    (HTML)

    pone.0350665.s003.html (1.7MB, html)
    S1 Table. Characteristics of included studies.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s004.docx (39.7KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Socio-demographic indicators.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s005.docx (20.8KB, docx)
    S3 Table. List of incomplete indicators.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s006.docx (76.2KB, docx)
    S4 Table. List of maternal outcome indicators (N = 132).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s007.docx (164.6KB, docx)
    S5 Table. List of foetal and neonatal outcome indicators (N = 118).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s008.docx (169.6KB, docx)
    S6 Table. List of maternal and neonatal outcome indicators (N=3).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s009.docx (15.2KB, docx)
    S7 Table. List of complete maternal process indicators (N = 210).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s010.docx (224.2KB, docx)
    S8 Table. List of complete neonatal process indicators (N = 12).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s011.docx (26.2KB, docx)
    S9 Table. List of complete maternal and neonatal process indicators (N = 21).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s012.docx (43.1KB, docx)
    S10 Table. List of complete structure and access indicators (N = 50).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0350665.s013.docx (69.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_Reviewers_R1.docx

    pone.0350665.s014.docx (39.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data required to replicate the findings of this scoping review are available within the manuscript and Supporting information files. The minimal dataset consists of the complete list of included studies and the extracted study-level information used to identify, map, and classify childbirth and immediate postpartum care quality indicators (S1 Table. Characteristics of included studies).

    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES