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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RWY27.

The aim of this study was to prioritise a set of indicators to measure World Health Organization (WHO) quality-of-care standards for small and/or sick newborns (SSNB) in health facilities. The hypothesis is that monitoring prioritised indicators can support accountability mechanisms, assess and drive progress, and compare performance in quality-of-care (QoC) at subnational levels.

Prospective, iterative, deductive, stepwise process to prioritise a list of QoC indicators organised around the WHO Standards for improving the QoC for small and sick newborns in health facilities. A technical working group (TWG) used an iterative four-step deductive process: (1) articulation of conceptual framework and method for indicator development; (2) comprehensive review of existing global SSNB-relevant indicators; (3) development of indicator selection criteria; and (4) selection of indicators through consultations with a wide range of stakeholders at country, regional and global levels.

The indicators are prioritised for inpatient newborn care (typically called level 2 and 3 care) in high mortality/morbidity settings, where most preventable poor neonatal outcomes occur.

The TWG included 24 technical experts and leaders in SSNB QoC programming selected by WHO. Global perspectives were synthesised from an online survey of 172 respondents who represented different countries and levels of the health system, and a wide range of perspectives, including ministries of health, research institutions, technical and implementing partners, health workers and independent experts.

The 30 prioritised SSNB QoC indicators include 27 with metadata and 3 requiring further development; together, they cover all eight standard domains of the WHO quality framework. Among the established indicators, 10 were adopted from existing indicators and 17 adapted. The list contains a balance of indicators measuring inputs (n=6), processes (n=12) and outcome/impact (n=9).

The prioritised SSNB QoC indicators can be used at health facility, subnational and national levels, depending on the maturity of a country’s health information system. Their use in implementation, research and evaluation across diverse contexts has the potential to help drive action to improve quality of SSNB care. WHO and others could use this list for further prioritisation of a core set.