Analytical cross-sectional study assesses knowledge and feasibility of WHO Labour Care Guide in midwives, highlighting significant training needs.
Background Labour‐related complications remain a major contributor to maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, especially in low‐resource settings. To improve labour monitoring and outcomes, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the Labour Care Guide (LCG) in 2020 to replace the traditional partograph. However, its adoption and understanding among midwives, who are frontline providers of maternity care, remain uncertain. Aims To assess the knowledge and perceived feasibility of the WHO Labour Care Guide among midwives in Enugu State, Nigeria. Materials and Methods Analytical cross‐sectional study was conducted among 43 midwives working in public health facilities in Enugu. Data were collected using a structured, self‐administered questionnaire and analysed using SPSS version 25. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the data, and associations were tested using Fisher's exact tests, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results Awareness of the LCG was reported by 30 midwives (69.8%). Among them, 16 (37.2%) had poor knowledge, and only 10 (33.3%) perceived it as highly feasible for routine use. Twenty‐nine (96.7%) midwives incorrectly believed that the LCG includes alert/action lines and key barriers to its implementation included perceived complexity, time consumption, insufficient training, and staff shortages. Years of experience were not significantly associated with knowledge of LCG ( p = 0.169). Conclusion Despite a relatively high level of awareness, substantial knowledge gaps and negative perceptions of its feasibility persist among midwives regarding the LCG. The tool is not currently in routine use in Enugu. There is a need for intensified training efforts, inclusion of the LCG in pre‐service midwifery curricula, and supportive policy measures to promote its effective implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chinonso et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: