This review, conducted by Bohren et al., aims to assess the effects of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support on women and their babies compared to usual care. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of continuous support on various outcomes, including spontaneous vaginal birth, negative feelings about the birth experience, postpartum depression, and use of intrapartum analgesia. Secondary objectives include the influence of factors such as routine practices, provider characteristics, timing of support, model of support, and country income level. The review included 27 trials involving 15,858 women from 17 countries, with a mix of high-income, middle-income, and no low-income settings. Continuous support was provided by hospital staff, non-staff members (doulas), or chosen companions. The results showed that women receiving continuous support were more likely to have spontaneous vaginal births, shorter labours, and lower rates of negative feelings about the birth experience and use of intrapartum analgesia. They were also less likely to have a caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth, or a low five-minute Apgar score for the baby. However, there was no significant difference in the number of babies admitted to special care or exclusive breastfeeding rates. Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective when provided by a doula and in settings without routine epidural analgesia. Continuous support from chosen companions was associated with increased spontaneous vaginal births and reduced caesarean births. Studies from middle-income countries showed a larger reduction in caesarean births compared to high-income countries. The quality of evidence was generally low due to limitations in study design and inconsistency or imprecision in effect estimates. The authors conclude that continuous support during labour may improve outcomes for both mothers and infants, with no identified adverse effects. Future research should focus on longer-term outcomes and include more woman-centered outcomes in low-income settings.This review, conducted by Bohren et al., aims to assess the effects of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support on women and their babies compared to usual care. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of continuous support on various outcomes, including spontaneous vaginal birth, negative feelings about the birth experience, postpartum depression, and use of intrapartum analgesia. Secondary objectives include the influence of factors such as routine practices, provider characteristics, timing of support, model of support, and country income level. The review included 27 trials involving 15,858 women from 17 countries, with a mix of high-income, middle-income, and no low-income settings. Continuous support was provided by hospital staff, non-staff members (doulas), or chosen companions. The results showed that women receiving continuous support were more likely to have spontaneous vaginal births, shorter labours, and lower rates of negative feelings about the birth experience and use of intrapartum analgesia. They were also less likely to have a caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth, or a low five-minute Apgar score for the baby. However, there was no significant difference in the number of babies admitted to special care or exclusive breastfeeding rates. Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective when provided by a doula and in settings without routine epidural analgesia. Continuous support from chosen companions was associated with increased spontaneous vaginal births and reduced caesarean births. Studies from middle-income countries showed a larger reduction in caesarean births compared to high-income countries. The quality of evidence was generally low due to limitations in study design and inconsistency or imprecision in effect estimates. The authors conclude that continuous support during labour may improve outcomes for both mothers and infants, with no identified adverse effects. Future research should focus on longer-term outcomes and include more woman-centered outcomes in low-income settings.