Implementation strategies for the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC) has been implemented in diverse settings to improve the quality and safety of intrapartum care, but implementation strategies and their relationship with adoption and fidelity remain heterogeneous and incompletely described. OBJECTIVES: To describe the landscape of SCC implementation, map the implementation strategies used and explore how these strategies were reported in relation to adoption and fidelity. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included primary studies reporting SCC implementation in healthcare settings that described at least one implementation strategy, with no restrictions on country or language. Studies that did not report implementation strategies or did not involve SCC use in real-world care settings were excluded. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health and Global Index Medicus (June 2024), screened reference lists and consulted grey literature for the period 2009-2024. CHARTING METHODS: This scoping review followed JBI methodology (Peters et al) and was reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. We extracted study characteristics and implementation findings, coded strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy and grouped them by clusters. Adoption (initial uptake) and fidelity (adherence to core components) were categorised following Proctor's implementation outcomes. We created a descriptive implementation intensity score and conducted exploratory analyses (tertiles, boxplot). RESULTS: 34 studies described 19 SCC implementation projects across 16 countries. We identified 24 distinct ERIC strategies, with most projects using 5-11 strategies. Frequently reported strategies included educational meetings, audit and feedback, supervision, contextual adaptation and leadership or champions. Exploratory analyses did not show consistent associations between implementation intensity and adoption or fidelity. 'Change infrastructure' strategies (such as record system or equipment changes) were variably defined and warrant cautious interpretation. Adaptations (eg, translation and alignment with national guidelines) were common and aimed at improving local fit, but heterogeneous reporting limited cross-study comparability. CONCLUSIONS: SCC implementation has relied on diverse, multicomponent strategies, yet reporting-especially of strategy content and adaptations-remains insufficient, constraining comparison and synthesis across settings. As a pragmatic bundle, implementers may prioritise brief team training, unit-level champions and leadership signals, point-of-care audit and feedback, light-touch SCC adaptation that preserves core content and structured supervision or peer coaching, combined with systematic inclusion of women and families through codesign and companion-mediated prompting. Using theory-informed frameworks (such as Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [CFIR]) and standardised reporting tools (eg, Proctor's outcomes; Template for Intervention Description and Replication / Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies [TIDieR/StaRI]) can make SCC implementation strategies more transparent, comparable and scalable. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RWY27.