Health system intervention packages on improving coverage of kangaroo mother care for preterm or LBW infants: a mixed-methods systematic review =============================================================================================================================================== * Nils Bergman * Megan Talej * Emily R. Smith * Suman PN Rao * Shuchita Gupta ## ABSTRACT **Introduction** Global coverage of Kangaroo mother care (KMC) remains low and health system intervention strategies that may improve coverage are not known. **Methods** We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the effect of health system intervention strategies for KMC implementation compared to no or different interventions, on KMC coverage in preterm or LBW infants. KMC coverage achieved by various studies was summarized. All included studies were classified as those that achieved increased KMC coverage (defined as ≥25% increase from baseline, with final coverage ≥50%) or low KMC coverage (defined as <25% increase from baseline or final coverage <50%). Studies that achieved increased KMC coverage were further classified based on the mean duration of skin-to-skin contact (SSC; hours per day) achieved. Health system interventions in different categories were summarized by WHO health system building blocks to understand factors linked to increased KMC coverage. **Findings** We identified 16 studies evaluating 15 health system intervention packages for KMC implementation that applied interventions in one or more health system building blocks that reported KMC coverage. All three studies that applied interventions across 5-6 building blocks (100%), two of the four studies that applied interventions across 3-4 building blocks (50%), and three of the nine studies that applied interventions across 1-2 building blocks (33%), achieved increased KMC coverage. Studies that did not achieve increased coverage had interventions primarily targeting health workforce and service delivery and were weak on leadership and governance, financing, and health information systems. All three studies that achieved increased KMC coverage with mean SSC ≥8h/d (100%), three of the five studies that achieved increased KMC coverage with mean SSC <8h/d (60%), and three of the eight studies with low KMC coverage (38%) had high-intensity interventions in at least one health system building blocks. High-level leadership engagement, KMC supportive policies, staff licensing, and facility standards regulations, strengthened numbers and capacity of nursing staff, government funding and expanded health insurance, wards with conducive environment, and recording KMC-specific indicators in clinical registers were key factors among studies that achieved increased KMC coverage. **Conclusion** High-intensity interventions across multiple health system building blocks should be used for equitable scale-up of KMC. Keywords * kangaroo mother care * skin-to-skin contact * preterm * low birthweight * coverage * health system ## INTRODUCTION Infants with low birth weight (LBW, birth weight below 2500 g) who are born preterm (gestational age at birth <37 weeks), are small for their gestational age (<10th percentile for gestational age), or both, constitute approximately 15% of all neonates worldwide but account for 70% of all neonatal deaths (1,2). Kangaroo mother care (KMC) for preterm or LBW infants, defined as continuous and prolonged skin-to-skin contact of the infant with the chest of the mother (or another caregiver when not possible with the mother) and exclusive breastfeeding or breastmilk feeding, is a high-impact intervention that reduces neonatal mortality by 32% (3,4). Taken to scale, it has the potential to have a major impact on neonatal mortality and is a public health imperative. There are few published data on population-based coverage of KMC, but it is known that the global KMC coverage remains low despite the long-standing WHO guidelines, country-level policies, and continued advocacy and efforts by global organizations (5). In 2019, only 32% of the 90 countries that reported progress on Every Newborn Action Plan had an updated policy or guideline on KMC (6). Even in countries with policies or guidelines on KMC, these are often not translated into programmatic implementation and many implementation barriers and potential facilitators for implementing KMC have been reported from different contexts. However, these are mostly based on multi-stakeholder consultations, expert opinions, or parents’ or health providers’ perspectives (7-9). While useful to understand these aspects, it is important to also look at the evidence of what strategies have worked in improving KMC coverage in real-life settings when the proposed solutions are operationalized. However, there has been no systematic review of evidence on how to take KMC to scale. Health system interventions to improve implementation and achieve high population-based coverage of KMC in infants born preterm or low birth weight are not known. Therefore, we undertook the current review to understand which health system intervention strategies for KMC implementation increase its coverage in preterm or LBW infants. ## METHODS The protocol for this systematic review was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement and registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42021271834) (10). ### Type of studies We included interventional studies - randomized trials (individually randomized and cluster-randomized), non-randomized trials, before-and-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measure studies that evaluated the effect of health system interventions for KMC implementation meeting the quality criteria used by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group (11), applied in one or more of the WHO health systems building blocks, compared to no or different (non-health system) interventions, on KMC coverage in preterm or LBW infants. However, because of the paucity of studies, we also included uncontrolled before-and-after studies, which is a departure from the EPOC criteria. All studies that reported an intervention package directed at improving KMC coverage in facilities or communities irrespective of baseline KMC coverage and effect were considered for inclusion. We excluded studies that only sought to improve the duration of KMC and/or encourage earlier initiation. ### Participants/population Participants were preterm (born at <37 completed weeks of gestation) or LBW (birth weight <2500g) infants. ### Interventions We included studies that applied interventions in one or more health system building blocks for improving KMC implementation. KMC was defined as continuous and prolonged skin-to-skin contact (SSC) of the infant with the chest of the mother (or another caregiver), feeding exclusively with breast milk, with or without early discharge from the hospital for preterm or LBW infants (12,13). We included all studies that reported ‘any KMC’ i.e., irrespective of SSC duration, support for exclusive breastfeeding or breastmilk feeding or early discharge, as long as it was clear that the intention was to provide continuous and prolonged SSC beyond the first hour after birth. Studies which focused only on SSC in the first hour after birth for all or term normal birth weight infants were excluded. The interventions could have been applied at any scale or health system level, e.g., facility, home or community, or district or national levels, and could include one or more health system components to improve KMC practice. The health system actions were defined using the WHO health system building blocks framework, encompassing the domains of leadership and governance, health financing, health workforce, equipment and supplies, commodities, infrastructure, and service delivery, and health information systems (14). ### Comparator Comparison groups were those that received no intervention to improve KMC or a different package of interventions, i.e., not targeting any health system components defined above. ### Outcomes The primary outcome was coverage of “any KMC”, i.e., the proportion of eligible preterm or LBW infants who received ‘any KMC’ as defined above. The secondary outcome was the description of the components of the packages of health system intervention strategies that achieved increased (≥50%) coverage of ‘any KMC’. ### Search strategy We systematically searched MEDLINE, Ovid, WHO Global Index Medicus, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Epistemonikos, and Web of Science, with no limit on language or date. The search was not limited by language, and all the potentially eligible studies were translated, if required, for inclusion in the review. The search was first done in August 2021, and updated in June 2022. Two authors (NB & MT) screened titles and abstracts using Covidence software and then undertook full-text review for assessing the eligibility of the studies. Any conflicts were resolved by two other authors (SG & SR). The search strategy is available on the link: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/271834\_STRATEGY_20210804.pdf](https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/271834_STRATEGY_20210804.pdf) ### Risk of bias in included studies We assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2.0 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies (15,16).. ### Data extraction, analysis, and interpretation Two authors extracted study details (MT, NB) and one author extracted numerical data for analysis (SG) which was independently cross verified by a second author (SR). The coverage of any KMC at baseline and end line was summarized for all studies, including the change in coverage achieved. The eligible studies were too heterogeneous to be pooled and hence a meta-analysis was not conducted. The quantitative synthesis of KMC coverage was followed by qualitative analysis using a sequential/consecutive approach for mixed-methods systematic reviews (17-19). All eligible studies were classified based on the final KMC coverage achieved and change in KMC coverage from baseline, as follows: 1. Studies that achieved increased KMC coverage (defined as a >25% increase from baseline, with final coverage >50%); or 2. Studies that achieved low KMC coverage (defined as <25% increase from baseline or final coverage <50%) Studies that achieved increased KMC coverage were further classified based on the mean duration of SSC (hours per day) achieved, as shown in table 1. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/18/2023.05.16.23289958/T1) Table 1. Subgrouping of studies using quantitative results on KMC coverage Thereafter, the interventions applied by the different studies were classified using the WHO health system building blocks framework as in Table 2 (14). View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/18/2023.05.16.23289958/T2) Table 2. Classification used for health system interventions for KMC implementation We considered the number of health system building blocks in which the interventions were applied as the “breadth” of intervention. Based on the six health system building blocks described above, we considered the “breadth” of intervention as high if a study intervention package comprised interventions in 5 or 6 building blocks, moderate if it applied interventions in 3 or 4 building blocks, and low if the package included interventions only in 1 or 2 health system building blocks. We also evaluated the intensity of health systems interventions for KMC implementation using Cochrane standard approach for assessing the intensity of complex interventions, using the TIDieR criteria (20), as: 1) How much-Number of times and over what period intervention was delivered, including the number of sessions, their schedule, duration, intensity, or dose; and 2) How well-If intervention adherence or fidelity was assessed, the extent to which the intervention was delivered as planned; whether or not any strategies were used to maintain or improve fidelity. Two independent assessors (SG, SR) categorized each intervention in each health system building block as high or low intensity. The intervention was marked as high if both reviewers considered it as high, else it was marked as a low-intensity intervention. The ‘breadth’ and ‘intensity’ of interventions were compared and contrasted between the different categories of studies based on the KMC coverage categories to understand the factors that may lead to high coverage of any KMC. ## RESULTS We identified 16 studies that evaluated 15 health system intervention strategies for KMC implementation applied in one or more building blocks and reported KMC coverage (Figure 1). Two studies implemented the same intervention package in two countries, Uganda, and Nepal, resulting in two publications. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/18/2023.05.16.23289958/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/18/2023.05.16.23289958/F1) Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart ### Design and setting Two studies were community-based cluster randomized trials (21,22) two were reports of a national-level programmatic scale-up (23,24), one was a mixed-methods study across facility-community continuum at district/woreda level (25), three were quality-improvement studies – one facility and one community-based (26-28), and eight were uncontrolled before-after health facility-based studies (28-35). Thirteen studies were conducted in lower-middle-income or low-income country settings -Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Nepal, Philippines, Uganda) and three in high-income settings (USA) (Table 3). View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/18/2023.05.16.23289958/T3) Table 3. Characteristics of included studies (n=16) View this table: [Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/18/2023.05.16.23289958/T4) Table 4. Any KMC coverage and change in KMC coverage achieved by included studies by KMC coverage categories ### Population The included studies either enrolled the mothers before delivery and reported the outcomes among those that delivered preterm or LBW infants or enrolled preterm or LBW infants after birth. While all studies enrolled preterm or LBW infants, the eligibility criteria varied in terms of birth weight and gestational age across different studies (table 3). ### Interventions applied by the included studies All studies applied interventions to improve KMC practice for preterm or LBW infants, at variable scale, depending on their setting, contextual factors and baseline KMC coverage/practice. While all studies did not report support for EBF/EBM feeding as part of the intervention package, it was provided as part of the unit protocol in many studies which also reported breastfeeding outcomes. ### Outcomes All studies reported the proportion of eligible preterm or LBW infants who received skin-to-skin contact after birth in the pre-intervention phase or comparison group and post-intervention phase or intervention arm. However, the duration of skin-to-skin contact and the time of measurement varied (table 3). There was high heterogeneity in the studies reporting KMC coverage in terms of population, implementation level and scale, KMC definition and reported outcomes, though all studies specified skin-to-skin contact more than one hour and the proportion of infants who received KMC. The risk of bias assessment for included studies and the list of excluded studies with reasons are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. ### Quantitative assessment of KMC coverage Eight of the 16 studies achieved increased KMC coverage with final KMC coverage ≥50% and an increase of ≥25% from baseline (Table 3). Of these, three studies reported SSC duration ≥8 hours per day. One was large mixed methods implementation research study conducted in 8.7 million population in India and Ethiopia, that achieved a final KMC coverage (SSC for ≥8 hours per day) of 55-85% at different sites, with an increase in the population-based coverage of KMC by more than 75% across seven sites in the two countries. The mean duration of skin-to-skin contact was 9.6 to 12.0 h/d in India sites and 11.6 to 14.9 h/d in Ethiopia sites (table 3) We reviewed the interventions applied by all included studies and classified them in various health system building blocks by study, based on pre-specified matrix provided in table 2 (table 5). The high intensity interventions are marked in bold font. View this table: [Table 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/18/2023.05.16.23289958/T5) Table 5. Interventions applied by the included studies classified by health system building blocks* ### Qualitative analysis of health system interventions by KMC coverage categories A higher proportion of studies that applied interventions across more health system building blocks achieved increased coverage: * All three studies (100%) that applied interventions across 5-6 building blocks achieved increased coverage: Mony 2021, Arora 2021 and Calibo 2021 * Two of the four studies (50%) that applied interventions across three to four building blocks achieved increased coverage: Minot 2021, Mondkar 2021, Prasantha 2019, and Kabir 2022 applied interventions across 3-4 building blocks but only Minot 2021 and Mondkar 2021 achieved increased coverage. * Three of the nine studies (33%) that had interventions across one to two building blocks attained increased coverage. Of the rest nine studies, only three studies, i.e., Kapoor 2021, Joshi 2022 and Hendricks-Munoz 2014 achieved increased coverage. The studies that did not achieve increased coverage had interventions primarily focused on the health workforce and service delivery and were weak on leadership and governance, financing, and health information systems. Studies that included high-intensity intervention in at least one health system building block were more likely to achieve increased KMC coverage than those that did not: * All three studies (100%) that achieved increased KMC coverage along with mean skin-to-skin contact for ≥8 hours per day had high-intensity interventions in at least one health system building block. * Three of the five studies (60%) that achieved an increased KMC coverage but where mean skin-to-skin contact was < 8 hours per day or not reported had high-intensity interventions in at least one health system building block. * Three of the eight studies (38%) studies that did not achieve an increased KMC coverage had high-intensity interventions in at least one health system building block. The type of interventions implemented by the studies that achieved increased KMC coverage are summarized in Table 6. View this table: [Table 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/18/2023.05.16.23289958/T6) Table 6. Summary of key interventions required to achieve increased KMC coverage. ## DISCUSSION The review findings suggest that a higher proportion of studies that applied interventions across more health system building blocks achieved increased KMC coverage-100% studies that applied interventions across 5-6 building blocks, 50% studies that applied interventions across 3-4 building blocks, and 33% studies that applied interventions across 1-2 building blocks achieved increased coverage. The studies that did not achieve increased coverage had interventions primarily focused on the health workforce and service delivery and were weak on leadership and governance, financing, and health information systems. Also, studies that included high-intensity intervention in at least one health system building block were more likely to achieve increased KMC coverage than those that did not. The type of interventions implemented in studies that achieved a large increase in coverage are summarized. KMC is a complex intervention, both as individual practice requiring specific behaviours from the infant’s mother and family to carry and feed their preterm or LBW infant for a prolonged period and as a programmatic component of small and/or sick newborn care wherein the health systems need to be ready to provide essential support to enable the mother and family to practise KMC. We found only one study looking at demand-side intervention of financial incentives to mothers (37) which was not eligible for inclusion, none related to improving care seeking practices or access to care though one study did address it through community interventions to identify and refer LBW babies (25). Few studies applied supply-side health interventions and reported KMC coverage. Those that did were quite variable in several aspects yet do allow some useful interpretations. System wide changes are not possible without coordinated and complementary actions in multiple domains. However, some health system actions in the domain of leadership and governance, health financing and health information systems may be particularly more effective alongside service delivery improvement and health workforce interventions, esp. to achieve increased KMC coverage at scale. Effective leadership and management have been shown to lead to optimal performance of health systems and positively impact health services and the population’s health outcomes (38), and changes in policy environment and availability of a strategic plan for scale-up have been shown to facilitate scale up (39). However, the level of engagement, intensity and sustenance of intervention in this domain appears to be an important factor influencing coverage, esp. at the national and sub-national scale, as evidenced by the two studies that achieved high coverage and one study that achieved low coverage but where this was the primary high-intensity intervention, potentially a major factor responsible for the observed change in coverage (23-25). Health financing is another crucial aspect. Only two of the eight studies that achieved high coverage reported health financing as an interventions, but it is noteworthy that both were large scale studies and achieved improvement in coverage at the district and national level (24,25). This suggests that while coverage improvements at facility-level may be achieved with local resources, programmatic scale up of KMC will require dedicated health system financing. Next health system building block is the health information systems. All three studies that achieved high KMC coverage with high SSC duration had interventions in the health information systems (25,26,35). It is obvious that prolonged and continuous KMC cannot be achieved without adequate routine monitoring. Only two of the five other studies that achieved high coverage intervened in this domain, but it is interesting to note that the remaining three studies already had high KMC coverage at baseline (>75%), which means they may already have strong KMC measurement and monitoring in place. Health work force interventions in isolation had little effect (32,33,34) as also identified in the past (40,41). Service delivery interventions varied by context, but key factors that facilitated prolonged and continuous SSC involved infrastructure changes to keep mothers and families with their infants too practice KMC, providing them the required support and counseling along with family involvement. Supplies for KMC, i.e., beds, chairs and garments are necessary but are all low-cost items. The findings of the review imply that a systems wide approach guided by leadership and good governance with few key set of health system actions can help increase KMC coverage at scale and is feasible to do in most settings. Our review is perhaps the first attempt to objectively evaluate the health system interventions that may improve KMC coverage. It spans national-level implementation through district and facility levels, with findings that are consistent with systematic reviews on barriers and enablers on KMC implementation (42,43), as well as learnings from programmatic implementation of KMC (44). However, there are several potential limitations to acknowledge. Publication bias is likely as studies which applied interventions to improve KMC but did not achieve expected or desired coverage may not have been published, and it could not be assessed in this review. The included studies were heterogenous in terms of setting, population, methods, scale, intensity and quality of intervention delivery, and time of outcome measurement, though the qualitative analysis did attempt to categorize the studies and interpret the findings using an objective framework. Owing to the nature of the review, results cannot be attributed to individual components of the intervention packages and must be considered together as package of health system building blocks. To conclude, high-intensity interventions across multiple health system building blocks should be used for equitably scaling up KMC. High-intensity interventions across multiple health system building blocks should be used for equitable scale-up of KMC. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/271834\_STRATEGY\_20210804.pdf](https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/271834_STRATEGY_20210804.pdf) ## Acknowledgement We acknowledge Dr. Rajiv Bahl, formerly, Head of the Newborn Health unit and Head of the Newborn Maternal, Newborn Child and Adolescent Health Research, Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child, Adolescent Health and Ageing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; and currently, Secretary, Department of Health Research, Government of India, and Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research, India, for his advice on data synthesis and interpretation. ## Footnotes * **Disclaimer:** The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the World Health Organization or the institutions to which the authors are affiliated. * **Funding.** NB and MT received a small grant from the WHO to conduct this review. SG is a staff member and SR is a consultant with WHO. ERS has no conflicts to declare. * **Conflict of interest.** NB reports personal fees from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for Immediate KMC Study, other from own enterprise NINO Academy, personal fees from NINO Academy, outside the submitted work. In addition, NB has a patent for Emotion monitor for infants pending to University of Cape Town, and a patent Trademark for ‘Kangaroula’ in USA issued to NINO Academy. Nils Bergman and Megan Talej received a small grant from WHO to conduct this review. SG is a staff member and SR is a consultant with WHO. ERS declares no conflict of interest. * **Ethics approval.** Not applicable. * **Availability of data and materials.** Materials are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. * **Additional material.** Single online supplementary file * Received May 16, 2023. * Revision received May 16, 2023. * Accepted May 18, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## REFERENCES 1. 1.Blencowe H, Krasevec J, de Onis M, Black RE, An X, Stevens GA, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of low birthweight in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Jul;7(7):e849–e860. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 2. 2.Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J; Lancet Neonatal Survival Steering Team. 4 million neonatal deaths: when? Where? Why? Lancet. 2005 Mar 5-11;365(9462):891–900. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71048-5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15752534&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000227444600032&link_type=ISI) 3. 3.WHO recommendations for care of the preterm or low birth weight infant. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022 ([https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1474473/retrieve](https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1474473/retrieve)). 4. 4.Sivanandan S, Sankar MJ. Kangaroo mother care for preterm or low birth weight infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Global Health 2023 (in press) 5. 5.Kangaroo Mother Care. An Implementation Strategy for scale up adaptable to different country contexts. Geneva: World Health Organization 2023 (in press) 6. 6.Ending preventable newborn deaths and stillbirths by 2030. Moving faster towards high-quality universal health coverage in 2020–2025. World Health Organization and UNICEF 2020 (https://www.unicef.org/media/77166/file/Ending-preventable-newborn-deaths-and-stillbirths-by-2030-universal-health-coverage-in-2020%E2%80%932025.pdf) 7. 7.Vesel L, Bergh AM, Kerber KJ, Valsangkar B, Mazia G, Moxon SG, et al; KMC Research Acceleration Group. Kangaroo mother care: a multi-country analysis of health system bottlenecks and potential solutions. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S5. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2393-15-S2-S5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 8. 8.Kourouma KR, Agbré-Yacé ML, Doukouré D, Cissé L, Some-Méazieu C, Ouattara J, et al. Barriers and facilitators to kangaroo mother care implementation in Cote d’Ivoire: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Nov 9;21(1):1211. 9. 9.Yue J, Liu J, Williams S, Zhang B, Zhao Y, Zhang Q, et al. Barriers and facilitators of kangaroo mother care adoption in five Chinese hospitals: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2020 Aug 13;20(1):1234. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 10. 10.Bergman NG, S. Rao, S. Edmond, K. Talej, M. Smith, E. Effectiveness of packages of health system interventions on coverage of KMC for preterm or LBW infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis York, UK 2021 [Available from: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display\_record.php?ID=CRD42021271834]](https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021271834]) 11. 11.Glenton C, Lewin S, Downe S, et al. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance. International journal of qualitative methods 2022;21:160940692110619. 12. 12.Conde-Agudelo A, Díaz-Rossello JL. Kangaroo mother care to reduce morbidity and mortality in low birthweight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 23;2016(8):CD002771. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/14651858.CD002771.pub4&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27552521&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 13. 13.WHO recommendations for care of the preterm or low birth weight infant. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. 14. 14.1. de Savigny Don AT, ed de Savigny D, Adam T. Systems thinking for health systems strengthening. In: de Savigny Don AT, ed.: Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO, 2009 15. 15.Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in 26andomized trials. BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDMvb2N0MThfMi9kNTkyOCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA1LzE4LzIwMjMuMDUuMTYuMjMyODk5NTguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 16. 16.Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355; i4919; doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919 [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNTUvb2N0MTJfMTEvaTQ5MTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wNS8xOC8yMDIzLjA1LjE2LjIzMjg5OTU4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 17. 17.Stern C, Lizarondo L, Carrier J, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, Apóstolo J, Kirkpatrick P, Loveday H. Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020 Oct;18(10):2108–2118.. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00169&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 18. 18.Hong, Q.N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M. et al. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Rev 6, 61 (2017). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 19. 19.Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, et al. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Global Health 2019;4:e000893. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTc6IjQvU3VwcGxfMS9lMDAwODkzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDUvMTgvMjAyMy4wNS4xNi4yMzI4OTk1OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 20. 20.Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ : British Medical Journal 2014;348:g1687. 21. 21.Vesel L, ten Asbroek AHA, Manu A, et al. Promoting skin-to-skin care for low birthweight babies: Findings from the Ghana Newhints cluster-randomised trial. Trop Med Int Health 2013;18(8):952–61. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/tmi.12134&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23731228&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 22. 22.Hodgins S, Rajbhandari B, Joshi D, et al. Community-based cluster randomized controlled trial: Empowering households to identify and provide appropriate care for low-birthweight newborns in Nepal. BMC Public Health 2020;20(1) 23. 23.Ehtesham Kabir A, Afroze S, Amin Z, et al. Implementation research on kangaroo mother care, Bangladesh. Bull World Health Organ 2022;100(1):10–19 24. 24.Calibo AP, De Leon Mendoza S, Silvestre MA, et al. Scaling up kangaroo mother care in the Philippines using policy, regulatory and systems reform to drive changes in birth practices. BMJ Glob Health 2021;6(8) 25. 25.Mony PK, Tadele H, Gobezayehu AG, et al. Scaling up Kangaroo Mother Care in Ethiopia and India: a multi-site implementation research study. BMJ Glob Health 2021;6(9) 26. 26.Arora P, Kommalur A, Devadas S, et al. Quality improvement initiative to improve the duration of kangaroo mother care for twin preterm neonates born at a tertiary care hospital in resource-limited settings. J Paediatr Child Health 2021;57(7):1082–88. 27. 27.Panda SD, S. Nayak, MK. Rath, S. Polakampalli, N. Mishra, S. Implementation of Home-Based KMC During SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Through a Quality-Improvement Initiative. Perinatology 2021;22(3):159–84 28. 28.Joshi A, Londhe A, Joshi T, et al. Quality improvement in Kangaroo Mother Care: learning from a teaching hospital. BMJ Open Qual 2022;11(Suppl 1) 29. 29.Mondkar J, Chawla D, Sachdeva RC, et al. Impact of mother-baby friendly initiative plus approach on improving human milk feeding for neonates in hospital: a quality improvement before-and-after uncontrolled study. Eur J Pediatr 2021 30. 30.Minot KL, Kramer KP, Butler C, et al. Increasing Early Skin-to-Skin in Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants. Neonatal network : NN 2021;40(4):242–50. 31. 31.Hendricks-Munoz KD, Mayers RM. A Neonatal Nurse Training Program in Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC) Decreases Barriers to KMC Utilization in the NICU. Am J Perinatol 2014;31(11):987–91. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1055/s-0034-1371359&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24683070&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 32. 32.Spira C, Dhital R, Jacob S, et al. Improving the quality of maternity services in Nepal through accelerated implementation of essential interventions by healthcare professional associations. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2018;143(3):379–86. 33. 33.Spira C, Kwizera A, Jacob S, et al. Improving the quality of maternity services in Uganda through accelerated implementation of essential interventions by healthcare professional associations. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2017;139(1):107–13. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 34. 34.Nation H, Sanlorenzo L, Lebar K, et al. A Quality Improvement Project to Increase Frequency of Skin-to-Skin Contact for Extreme Low-Birth-Weight Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The Journal of perinatal & neonatal nursing 2021;35(3):247–57. 35. 35.Kapoor R, Verma A, Dalal P, et al. Enhancing Kangaroo Mother Care Uptake Through Implementation of an Education Protocol. Indian J Pediatr 2021;88(6):544–49. 36. 36.Prashantha YN, Shashidhar A, Balasunder BC, et al. Onsite mentoring of special newborn care unit to improve the quality of newborn care. Indian J Public Health 2019;63(4):357–61. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 37. 37.Andrews KG, Martin MW, Shenberger E, Pereira S, Fink G, McConnell M. Financial Support to Medicaid-Eligible Mothers Increases Caregiving for Preterm Infants. Matern Child Health J. 2020 May;24(5):587–600. 38. 38.Jiyenze MK, Sirili N, Ngocho JS, Kikula A, Chikoti B, Kapologwe N, Kengia JT. Strengthening health management, leadership, and governance capacities: What are the actual training needs in Tanzania? Health Sci Rep. 2023 Mar 20;6(3):e1158. 39. 39.Bulthuis SE, Kok MC, Raven J, Dieleman MA. Factors influencing the scale-up of public health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative systematic literature review. Health Policy Plan. 2020 Mar 1;35(2):219–234. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/heapol/czz140&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 40. 40.Pantoja T, Opiyo N, Lewin S, et al. Implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;9(9):Cd011086. 41. 41.Siddiqi K, Newell J, Robinson M. Getting evidence into practice: what works in developing countries? International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2005;17(5):447–54 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/intqhc/mzi051&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15872024&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000232579500012&link_type=ISI) 42. 42.Chan GJ, Labar AS, Wall S, et al. Kangaroo mother care: a systematic review of barriers and enablers. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2016;94(2):130. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2471/BLT.15.157818&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26908962&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 43. 43.Smith ER, Bergelson I, Constantian S, et al. Barriers and enablers of health system adoption of kangaroo mother care: a systematic review of caregiver perspectives. BMC pediatrics 2017;17(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12887-016-0769-5 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12887-016-0769-5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F18%2F2023.05.16.23289958.atom) 44. 44. Anne-Marie Bergh, Shuchita Gupta, Suman Rao. Programmatic implementation of kangaroo mother care: a systematic synthesis of grey literature. medRxiv 2023.04.05.23288153; doi: [https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.05.23288153](https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.05.23288153)