Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2022 Nov 16;2(11):e0000985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000985

Improving access to health services through health reform in Lesotho: Progress made towards achieving Universal Health Coverage

Melino Ndayizigiye 1,#, Lao-Tzu Allan-Blitz 2,3,*,#, Emily Dally 4, Seyfu Abebe 1, Afom Andom 4, Retsepile Tlali 1, Emily Gingras 1, Mathabang Mokoena 1, Meba Msuya 4, Patrick Nkundanyirazo 4, Thiane Mohlouoa 1, Fusi Mosebo 1, Sophie Motsamai 1, Joalane Mabathoana 1, Palesa Chetane 1, Likhapha Ntlamelle 1, Joel Curtain 4, Collin Whelley 5, Ermyas Birru 6, Ryan McBain 7, Di Miceli Andrea 8, Dan Schwarz 2,9, Joia S Mukherjee 2,4
Editor: Hamish R Graham10
PMCID: PMC10021396  PMID: 36962564

Abstract

In 2014 the Kingdom of Lesotho, in conjunction with Partners In Health, launched a National Health Reform with three components: 1) improved supply-side inputs based on disease burden in the catchment area of each of 70 public primary care clinics, 2) decentralization of health managerial capacity to the district level, and 3) demand-side interventions including paid village health workers. We assessed changes in the quarterly average of quality metrics from pre-National Health Reform in 2013 to 2017, which included number of women attending their first antenatal care visit, number of post-natal care visits attended, number of children fully immunized at one year of age, number of HIV tests performed, number of HIV infection cases diagnosed, and the availability of essential health commodities. The number of health centers adequately equipped to provide a facility-based delivery increased from 3% to 95% with an associated increase in facility-based deliveries from 2% to 33%. The number of women attending their first antenatal and postnatal care visits rose from 1,877 to 2,729, and 1,908 to 2,241, respectively. The number of children fully immunized at one year of life increased from 191 to 294. The number of HIV tests performed increased from 5,163 to 12,210, with the proportion of patients living with HIV lost to follow-up falling from 27% to 22%. By the end of the observation period, the availability of essential health commodities increased to 90% or above. Four years after implementation of the National Health Reform, we observed increases in antenatal and post-natal care, and facility-based deliveries, as well as child immunization, and HIV testing and retention in care. Improved access to and utilization of primary care services are important steps toward improving health outcomes, but additional longitudinal follow-up of the reform districts will be needed.

Introduction

According to the World Bank report in 2017, the Kingdom of Lesotho had some of the poorest health outcomes in the world with some of the highest rates of both human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and tuberculosis [1]. Over the last two decades, Lesotho received a significant amount of international aid primarily focused on controlling HIV and tuberculosis. Yet unlike other African countries, Lesotho did not use those funds to strengthen primary healthcare. Thus, at the end of the Millennium Development Goals era in 2015, Lesotho had persistently high rates of infant and maternal mortality [24] as well as child malnutrition [5, 6]. Disease-focused programs, largely managed by international organizations, have struggled to meet targets for case-finding and treatment of HIV and Tuberculosis [7]. In 2017, there were over 13,000 new HIV infections among children due to gaps in prevention of vertical transmission [1, 8]. The poor performance of those programs led to a widespread recognition of the need for horizontal, multifaceted health-system strengthening to address all causes of mortality [9, 10]. Further, healthcare financing in Lesotho is limited; the government of Lesotho spends more than 10% of their national budget on health, yet costs of the country’s central hospital consumes more than half of the public expenditures on health [11].

In 2006, the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW), the Clinton Health Access Initiative, and Partners In Health (PIH) implemented a multipronged intervention and demonstrated improved access to care and healthcare utilization among pregnant, laboring and post-partum women [12, 13]. Based on that success, the MOHSW solicited the support of PIH in the design, implementation, and evaluation a national health reform in primary care clinics [1416]. Four districts were selected by the MOHSW to pilot the National Health Reform interventions: Berea, Leribe, Butha-Buthe and Mohale’s Hoek, which spanned an estimated catchment population of 815,520 individuals (40% of the country’s total population). All health facilities in those districts were included. Through the baseline auditing of the 70 facilities [17] three primary inter-related deficits were identified: 1) insufficient staffing, inadequate space, and a lack of supplies to meet the burden of disease for the catchment areas of the clinics, 2) lack of district-level managerial capacity, and 3) a Village Health Program untethered from the health system and depended on undercompensated, unsupervised labor of village health workers utilizing a variety of one-off interventions [18].

Subsequently, MOHSW and PIH implemented a multi-tiered national health reform within those four districts. An interim report in 2019 of outcomes from that reform revealed increased antenatal care visits, facility-based deliveries, and improved inter-facility transfer of complex cases (S1 Text). The present report aims to evaluate the impact of the numerous interventions of the national health reform on various outcome metrics.

Methods

Ethics statement

The Harvard Human Research Protection Program granted ethical approval for this study (IRB17-19888), as did the Lesotho National Health Research Ethics Committee (id 117–2017). Informed consent was deemed not necessary as the reform interventions were done on a systems level.

Overview of national health reform interventions

The National Health Reform was implemented in 2014 (see S2 Text for specific interventions and S3 Text for the detailed study protocol) aiming to address the three key deficiencies: service delivery, district managerial capacity, and the Village Health Program. Regarding service delivery, at the facility level, the DHS data for each district was compared with the catchment area to set targets for service delivery using the PIH Universal Health Coverage planning tool [19, 20]. Based on that assessment inputs to the system were aligned with the expected need. Specific interventions included supplies of required equipment for facility-based deliveries and hiring of 24-hour midwife coverage, the establishment of maternal waiting homes, provision of heating supplies and food. To improve supply chain management and reduce stock outs of essential medications, we used morbidity-based mapping and tracer commodities in combination with the introduction of 13 additional pharmacists. In order to decentralize district managerial capacity, District Health Management Team were trained and implemented within each district, which were responsible for overseeing health services delivery. Finally, 5,359 village health workers were recruited to increase coverage in all villages within the catchment areas, and trained via a standardized PIH community health worker curriculum [21].

Over the period of the intervention, there were several deviations from the protocol (S3 Text) both from an implementation standpoint as well as from an analysis standpoint. First, in addition to the four pilot villages, the health reform interventions were initially planned for implementation in the central ministry of health. Frequent internal turnover of government staff precluded that implementation. From an analysis standpoint, we were unable to collect the population level metrics on tuberculosis outcomes, thus those outcomes were excluded from the present report. Similarly, the data collected regarding initiation of antiretroviral therapy among patients diagnosed with HIV contained numerous missing entries, thus was excluded from the analysis to avoid introducing bias.

Data collection

Baseline data collection was done in all the health facilities in the four districts from July 2013 to June 2014 via standardized collection tools. Those tools included standardized interviews with key stakeholders, as well as population-level assessment of key facility health metrics that were used as our outcomes of interest as described in detail below (S4 Text). Those data were collected by a monitoring and evaluation team from the PIH and MOHSW who went to all facilities and collected data from the facility registers over a period of six months. The collection of the data was done on password protected and encrypted electronic tablets.

Study design and data analysis

The primary outcomes of interest were defined in three domains: 1) utilization of healthcare services, 2) children receiving immunizations at the facility, and 3) HIV testing and retention in care. Those domains were selected as they were most readily accessible for analysis, and most likely directly impacted by the specific interventions (S1 Text). With regards to maternal health, the outcome measures were the change pre- and post-intervention in average quarterly number of women attending their first and fourth antenatal care visits, average quarterly number of women attending their post-natal care visits, average quarterly number of health centers adequately equipped to provide a facility-based birth, average quarterly number of facility-based births that occurred. With regards to childhood immunizations, we evaluated the change in the average quarterly number of children who were immunized at one year of life at the clinic. Complete immunization at one year of life was defined as having received BCG, Hepatitis B, Polio, Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type B, Pneumococcal (conjugate), Rotavirus, Measles-Mumps-Rubella, and Human Papilloma Virus [22]. Finally, with regards to HIV testing and retention in care, our primary outcomes of interest were the proportion of patients living with HIV and enrolled in care who were lost to follow-up, the average quarterly number of HIV tests performed at health facilities, and the average quarterly number of new HIV cases detected.

Our secondary outcomes of interest were average quarterly number of maternal emergency referrals placed and transported to the health facility and the availability of essential medications. Those two metrics were selected as there was no emergency referral system prior to the national health reform, and the availability of essential medications was subject to numerous confounding variables that we were unable to control for, thus it was selected as a secondary outcome.

In order to assess for potential confounding by differences in the population before and after the National Health Reform, evaluated the change population demographic variables over the duration of the study (Table 1) [23]. We then conducted a one arm pre- and post-intervention time series analysis, evaluating changes in the outcomes above after three years of operationalizing the National Health Reform compared to before (2013). Data were collected in 2017, thus that was considered the end point for the study, however the activities of the National Health Reform are ongoing. Data were analyzed using STATA software version 15.1 and interrupted time series were performed to assess the trends on different indicators. Results are reported in accordance with STROBE guidelines (S1 Checklist). Data are available as a supplemental file (S1 Data).

Table 1. Nationwide annual demographic trends across Lesotho at the population level, 2011–2019.

Year 2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Crude Birth Rate (per 1,000 people) 28.8 28.6 28.3 28.1 27.8 27.5 27.2 26.8 26.4
Incidence of HIV, ages 15–49 (per 1,000 uninfected pop. ages 15–49) †† 21.4 21.0 20.3 18.8 17.1 15.1 12.7 10.7 9.8
Rural population (% of total population) § 74.7 74.3 73.9 73.5 73.1 72.7 72.3 71.8 71.4
Population, female (% of total population) ** 51.3 51.2 51.1 50.9 50.9 50.8 50.7 50.7 50.7
Annual health expenditure per capita (current US$) §§ 125.7 117.3 115.8 113.3 104.2 89.5 110.9 124.7 124.2
Gross Domestic Product per capita (current USD) π 1,287 1,230 1,167 1,195 1,146 1,019 1,103 1,192 1,113

*The National Health Reformation started on Q2 2014

The crude birth rate indicates the number of live births occurring during the year, per 1,000 population estimated at midyear.

†† The incidence of HIV is computed as the number of new HIV infections among uninfected populations ages 15–49 expressed per 1,000 uninfected population in the year before the period.

§ Rural population refers to people living in rural areas as defined by national statistical offices. It is calculated as the difference between total population and urban population.

** The proportion female in the population is based on the population count, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship

§§ Estimates of annual health expenditures include healthcare goods and services consumed during each year. Data are in current U.S. dollars.

π Gross domestic product per capita is equal to the gross domestic product divided by midyear population. Data are in current U.S. dollars.

The table shows national population level trends in birth rate, incidence of HIV, proportion of the total population living in rural areas, proportion of the total population identifying as female, annual health expenditure per capita, and gross domestic product.

Results

Maternal health

The quarterly average number of women who attended their first antenatal care visit rose from 1,877 (SD +/- 263) pre-National Health Reform to 2,729 (SD +/- 287) in the last year of the intervention, with similar though smaller trends noted for antenatal care visits (see Fig 1a). Similarly, the percent of visits at local health centers used for fourth antenatal care visit rose from 69% to 78% (p-value < 0.01). Importantly, the number of health centers adequately equipped to provide a facility-based delivery increased from 3% to 95% with an associated increase in deliveries occurring at a health facility from 2% to 33% (see Fig 2).

Fig 1. Changes in quarterly average number of women attending prenatal and antenatal care visit Q3 2013 –Q2 2017.

Fig 1

a. shows the changes in quarterly average number of women attending prenatal care visits in four rural districts across Lesotho. b shows the changes in quarterly average number of women presenting for their first and fourth antenatal care visits in four rural districts across Lesotho. Both figures show the change over time beginning in the third quarter of 2013 (before the National Health Reform) through the second quarter of 2017 (nearly three years into the National Health Reform).

Fig 2. Percent of deliveries occurring in a hospital or health center in Lesotho.

Fig 2

Fig 2 shows the percentage of births occurring within health centers in four rural districts across Lesotho, comparing pre- and post-National Health Reform interventions.

Emergency referral and transportation of obstetric complications increased from 2.3 transports pre-intervention to 42 total transportations post-intervention, with similar increases noted across all districts. Additionally, by the end of the National Health Reform, the availability of essential medical supplies, tracer drugs, antiretroviral therapies, and vaccines to 90% or above. Notably, no quantitative data had been collected about the availability of such supplies prior to the National Health Reform, thus systems were consequently implemented to track availability of all essential health commodities within each district. Overall, the number of postnatal care visits increased from a quarterly average of 1,908 (SD +/- 105) pre-National Health Reform to 2,241 (SD +/- 545) (see Fig 1b).

Childhood immunizations at one year of life

The number of children fully immunized at one year of life increased from a quarterly average of 191 (SD +/- 108) to 294 (SD +/- 238) (p-value 0.148) (see Fig 3). Testing for HIV among children (from 6 weeks to 18 months old) rose from a quarterly average of 301 (SD +/- 147) to 456 (SD +/- 262).

Fig 3. Quarterly average number of children fully immunized at one year of life by district in Lesotho, Q3 2013 –Q2 2017.

Fig 3

Fig 3 shows the quarterly average number of children fully immunized at one year in each of four rural districts across Lesotho in which National Health Reform interventions took place, comparing pre- and post-intervention results. Notes: (Figure 19) [1] The pink line represents the line of best fit. The slope is 71.940 [2] Excludes hospitals.

HIV prevention and care continuum

The proportion of patients living with HIV enrolled in care receiving antiretroviral therapy who were lost to follow-up pre-National Health Reform fell from 27% across all health facilities to 22% post-National Health Reform (p-value<0.05). Further, the number of HIV tests performed at health facilities increased from a quarterly average of 5,163 (SD +/- 2,990) pre-National Health Reform to 12,210 (SD +/- 6,915) (Fig 4). The quarterly average cases detected increased from 592 (SD +/- 301) to 735 (SD +/- 587). Among those, the number of infected pregnant women increased from a quarterly average of 172 (SD +/- 74) to 199 (SD +/-). The increase in testing resulted in an increased case detection rate from a quarterly average 6.3 cases per quarter (SD +/- 4.6) to 7.2 (SD +/- 5.5) before and after the National Health Reform, respectively.

Fig 4. Increased number of HIV tests at health facilities Q3 2013 –Q2 2017.

Fig 4

Fig 4 shows the trend in the number of HIV tests performed outside of the hospital across four rural districts in Lesotho over time, plotted against the targets for HIV testing established by the Universal Health Coverage goals. The figure shows the change over time beginning in the third quarter of 2013 (before the National Health Reform) through the fourth quarter of 2016 (more than two years into the National Health Reform).

Discussion

We report on the extensive National Health Reform undertaken in Lesotho with the support of PIH, as well as various improvements in health outcomes observed after the reform period. The three main interventions of the National Health Reform were supply-side system strengthening, improving district managerial capacity, and re-vitalizing the village health worker program. After implementation of those interventions, though no comment on causation can be made, we observed improvements in maternal health outcomes, the proportion of children fully immunized by one year of age, and in HIV diagnostic capacity as well as retention in care.

The improvements in maternal and child health metrics observed included access to care and care utilization such as increased in antenatal and postnatal care visits and facility-based deliveries. Additionally, emergent referrals from health centers to hospitals are now possible with the establishment of emergency referral systems. Access to antenatal care and facility-based deliveries both have been shown to improve maternal health outcomes [12]. The HIV prevention and care continuum depends on numerous interconnected strategies, from testing, linkage to and retention in care, all of which are vital to the successful attainment of UN AIDS 90-90-90 goal [24]. Fundamentally, however, initial diagnosis of HIV is essential, and prior work has consistently emphasized the importance of universal testing [25]. Similarly, retention in care, particularly in resource-limited settings, creates numerous challenges both for individual patients and their communities [26, 27]. The village health worker program, specifically, may have played a role in the observed improvements. Prior work has demonstrated similar changes after the introduction of accompaniment models [28].

Finally, vaccine preventable infections contribute to high infant mortality worldwide [29, 30]. In Sub-Saharan Africa, there are numerous and complex barriers to immunization [31]. Extensive work has documented the economic value of vaccination programs [32]; one study concluded that an investment of $34 billion dollars for immunization programs in 94 low- and middle-income countries, would result in a savings of $586 billion dollars in reducing the cost of illness [33]. Thus, improving the rates of childhood immunization is of paramount importance. Our results are encouraging in that we observed an improvement in rates of complete 1-year immunizations. The specific barriers for local communities, however, will vary by region and must be the premise of future interventions.

While it is not possible to attribute those changes to any single intervention or constellation of interventions of the National Health Reform, prior work has demonstrated that the components selected have been associated with similar improvements. First, improving service delivery, from resource provision to assurance of the supply chain has been shown to improve healthcare utilization [34]. Second, decentralization of resources and personnel is a viral part of health systems strengthening, and is dependent upon the development of managerial capacity [35]. Improved health center management [3638], and specifically improved district-level managerial capacity in resource-limited settings is associated with numerous improved health outcomes [39, 40]. Notably, concomitant assurance of accountability is essential to improved managerial capacity [41, 42], which in the present context was done via the community score card -itself a tool associated with demonstrable improvements in service provider effectiveness, service provision and accountability as well as responsiveness [43, 44]. Finally, the various roles and benefits of the community health worker model in resource-limited settings are well characterized [15, 4547], and likely contributed significantly to the overall impact of the National Health Reform.

Importantly, as our results are observational in nature, direct attribution to the interventions of the National Health Reform are not appropriate. There are other potential explanations for at least some of the changes observed, such as evolving costs of medications and resources, government spending in other sectors that has indirect benefits on healthcare, and many more. Likewise, changes in demographics and risk-factors at the district level over time may have also confounded our results; however, in the absence of district-level data, the population level trends in demographics (Table 1) did not suggest significant difference before and after the interventions. Thus, further work is needed to delineate the causes for the improved metrics observed, which will not only facilitate more targeted interventions in the future but also facilitate replication of our results in other settings. However, in light of those findings, and previous work supporting similar models [28, 39, 40], we advocate for further support for infrastructure building and accompaniment models to continue progress towards improved maternal health outcomes. Infrastructure capacity building and assurance of medication supply chains, however, are equally valuable as the entire continuum is necessary for improvement in HIV care nationally.

Future directions

As mentioned above, further assessment of the specific components of the intervention, while controlling for other potential explanations for improved health metrics, will be an essential next step. Additionally, review of the continuing barriers that prevent successful achievement of MDGs is warranted in order to further refine the National Health Reform. Further scale up of the health reform interventions into other districts and evaluation of similar outcomes is warranted, but simultaneous assessment of specific intervention components will be meaningful for iterative assessment of programmatic success. Similarly, future iterations of reform efforts should focus on improving retention in care, specifically antenatal care, which did not significantly change during our observation period. Further work is also needed to assess the impacts of the reform on Tuberculosis testing and care. Finally, one challenge we encountered was a paucity of district level census demographic data, making determination of the rate of change not possible. Such a challenge is likely to be evident in other similarly resource limited settings. Future efforts should strive for developing improved infrastructure for both population and disease surveillance, which may facilitate a more accurate understanding of population level rates of disease, as well as provide the foundation for public health responses to outbreaks.

Conclusions

The Lesotho MOHSW and PIH developed and implemented a national health reform over the course of three years. We report the practice interventions deployed, highlighting three key areas: service delivery, health system management, and the village health worker program. We observed increases in maternal antenatal and post-natal care visits as well as emergency referrals, increases in child immunization rates, and improvements in retention in care among patients living with HIV as well as increased HIV testing. We also noted increased availability of essential health commodities. Although surrogates for concrete outcomes, those correlations are encouraging and support further research into the strategies employed with consideration of implementation of similarly multi-pronged health system strengthening interventions in other settings.

Supporting information

S1 Data. The table contains the raw, facility-level data, which was used to generate the results in the manuscript.

(XLSX)

S1 Text. This document is the 2019 annual report on technical support authored by Partners in Health regarding the pharmacy and medical supply chain management detailing augmentation of cold chain capacity for five health centers to appropriately store several life-saving medicines, as well as the interim outcomes for antenatal care visits, facility-based deliveries, and inter-facility transfer of complex cases.

(PDF)

S2 Text. This supplement provides additional details regarding the interventions done as a part of the national health reform.

It further includes a table demonstrating the three core areas identified as needs during the National Health Reform: Service Delivery, Health System Managerial Capacity, and the Professional Village Health Worker Program, and lists specific areas for targeted for improvement within each area. Those areas became the focus of the interventions within the National Health Reform.

(DOCX)

S3 Text. This supplement provides the detailed study protocol.

Deviations from the protocol are highlighted in the methods section of the text.

(PDF)

S4 Text. This supplement includes the standardized survey questions for key stakeholders as well as the data collection tool from which our outcome variables of interest were derived.

(PDF)

S1 Checklist. This supplement provides the STROBE checklist for reporting guidelines.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the government of Lesotho and leadership of Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. Further, we would like to acknowledge the Analysis Group Inc., for supporting the data analysis, and the Boston Consulting Group. Finally, the authors would like to acknowledge Pierre Y. Cremieux for his contributions to the work.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

Funding for this study came from the Skoll Foundation (grant number 19-44478) (JM) and the Wagner Foundation (project code AVA0436) (JM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.UNAIDS. People Living with HIV Receiving ART (as of 30 June 2020). https://aidsinfo.unaids.org Accessed May 31, 2021.
  • 2.The World Bank. Lesotho’s Health Sector: Findings & Lessons from the 2017 Public Health Sector Expenditure Review. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/health/brief/lesothos-health-sector Accessed May 31, 2021.
  • 3.Hogan MC, Foreman KJ, Naghavi M, Ahn SY, Wang M, Makela SM, et al. Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980–2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5. Lancet. 2010;375(9726):1609–23. Epub 2010/04/13. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60518-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.United Nations (2010) Keeping the promise: a forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015: Report of the Secretary-General. Geneva: United Nations Generaly Assembly Sixty-fourth session.
  • 5.Akombi BJ, Agho KE, Merom D, Renzaho AM, Hall JJ. Child malnutrition in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis of demographic and health surveys (2006–2016). PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0177338. Epub 2017/05/12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mukherjee J, Lindeborg MM, Wijayaratne S, Mitnick C, Farmer PE, Satti H. Global Cash Flows for Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Accountability and Health Systems Strengthening in Lesotho. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2020;31(1):56–74. Epub 2020/02/11. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2020.0008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.World Health Organization. World Tuberculosis Report. 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/336069/9789240013131-eng.pdf Accessed June 24, 2021.
  • 8.Lesotho Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment. November 2017. https://phia.icap.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Lesotho-Summary-Sheet_A4.2.7.18.HR_.pdf Accessed June 23, 2021.
  • 9.Bhutta ZA, Ali S, Cousens S, Ali TM, Haider BA, Rizvi A, et al. Alma-Ata: Rebirth and Revision 6 Interventions to address maternal, newborn, and child survival: what difference can integrated primary health care strategies make? Lancet. 2008;372(9642):972–89. Epub 2008/09/16. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61407-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Campbell OM, Graham WJ, Lancet Maternal Survival Series steering g. Strategies for reducing maternal mortality: getting on with what works. Lancet. 2006;368(9543):1284–99. Epub 2006/10/10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69381-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Half of Lesotho health budget goes to private consortium for one hospital. The Guardian. 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/lesotho-health-budget-private-consortium-hospital Accessed June 24, 2021.
  • 12.Berhan Y, Berhan A. Antenatal care as a means of increasing birth in the health facility and reducing maternal mortality: a systematic review. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2014;24 Suppl:93–104. Epub 2014/12/10. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v24i0.9s [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Satti H, Motsamai S, Chetane P, Marumo L, Barry DJ, Riley J, et al. Comprehensive approach to improving maternal health and achieving MDG 5: report from the mountains of Lesotho. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42700. Epub 2012/09/07. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cancedda C, Riviello R, Wilson K, Scott KW, Tuteja M, Barrow JR, et al. Building Workforce Capacity Abroad While Strengthening Global Health Programs at Home: Participation of Seven Harvard-Affiliated Institutions in a Health Professional Training Initiative in Rwanda. Acad Med. 2017;92(5):649–58. Epub 2017/03/23. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001638 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Palazuelos D, Farmer PE, Mukherjee J. Community health and equity of outcomes: the Partners In Health experience. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(5):e491–e3. Epub 2018/04/15. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30073-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Behforouz HL, Farmer PE, Mukherjee JS. From directly observed therapy to accompagnateurs: enhancing AIDS treatment outcomes in Haiti and in Boston. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38 Suppl 5:S429–36. Epub 2004/05/25. doi: 10.1086/421408 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Lesotho), ICF Macro (2010) Lesotho Demographic and Health Survey 2009. Calverton, United States: ICF Macro.
  • 18.Andriessen PP, van der Endt RP, Gotink MH. The village health worker project in Lesotho: an evaluation. Trop Doct. 1990;20(3):111–3. Epub 1990/07/01. doi: 10.1177/004947559002000307 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mukherjee JS, Mugunga JC, Shah A, Leta A, Birru E, Oswald C, et al. A practical approach to universal health coverage. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(4):e410–e1. Epub 2019/03/19. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30035-X . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Partners In Health: Universal Health Coverage Monitoring & Planning Tool. https://www.pih.org/practitioner-resource/universal-health-coverage-monitoring-planning-tool Accessed June 18, 2021.
  • 21.Partners In Health: Accompagnateur Training Guide. https://www.pih.org/practitioner-resource/accompagnateur-training-guide/accompagnateur-training-guide Accessed June 1, 2021.
  • 22.World Health Organization. Recommended Childhood Immunizations. Updated 2019. https://www.who.int/immunization/policy/Immunization_routine_table2.pdf Accessed July 20, 2021.
  • 23.World Bank Data, Lesotho. at: https://data.worldbank.org/country/LS Accessed May 24, 2022.
  • 24.UN AIDS. 90-90-90: Treatment for All. https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/909090 Accessed June 2, 2021.
  • 25.Bendavid E, Brandeau ML, Wood R, Owens DK. Comparative effectiveness of HIV testing and treatment in highly endemic regions. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(15):1347–54. Epub 2010/08/11. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Geng EH, Nash D, Kambugu A, Zhang Y, Braitstein P, Christopoulos KA, et al. Retention in care among HIV-infected patients in resource-limited settings: emerging insights and new directions. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2010;7(4):234–44. Epub 2010/09/08. doi: 10.1007/s11904-010-0061-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chammartin F, Zurcher K, Keiser O, Weigel R, Chu K, Kiragga AN, et al. Outcomes of Patients Lost to Follow-up in African Antiretroviral Therapy Programs: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(11):1643–52. Epub 2018/06/12. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Franke MF, Kaigamba F, Socci AR, Hakizamungu M, Patel A, Bagiruwigize E, et al. Improved retention associated with community-based accompaniment for antiretroviral therapy delivery in rural Rwanda. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(9):1319–26. Epub 2012/12/20. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis1193 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.World Health Organization: Estimates of disease burden and cost effectiveness. 2017 https://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/burden/estimates/en/ Accessed June 3rd, 2021.
  • 30.Njuma Libwea J, Bebey Kingue SR, Taku Ashukem N, Kobela M, Boula A, Sinata KS, et al. Assessing the causes of under-five mortality and proportion associated with pneumococcal diseases in Cameroon. A case-finding retrospective observational study: 2006–2012. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0212939. Epub 2019/04/18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212939 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fenta SM, Biresaw HB, Fentaw KD, Gebremichael SG. Determinants of full childhood immunization among children aged 12–23 months in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis using Demographic and Health Survey Data. Trop Med Health. 2021;49(1):29. Epub 2021/04/03. doi: 10.1186/s41182-021-00319-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.The Economic Value of Vaccination: Why Prevention is Wealth. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2015;3. Epub 2015/01/01. doi: 10.3402/jmahp.v3.29414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ozawa S, Clark S, Portnoy A, Grewal S, Brenzel L, Walker DG. Return On Investment From Childhood Immunization In Low- And Middle-Income Countries, 2011–20. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(2):199–207. Epub 2016/02/10. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1086 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Abera Abaerei A, Ncayiyana J, Levin J. Health-care utilization and associated factors in Gauteng province, South Africa. Glob Health Action. 2017;10(1):1305765. Epub 2017/06/03. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2017.1305765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lega F, Prenestini A, Spurgeon P. Is management essential to improving the performance and sustainability of health care systems and organizations? A systematic review and a roadmap for future studies. Value Health. 2013;16(1 Suppl):S46–51. Epub 2013/01/18. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wong R, Hathi S, Linnander EL, El Banna A, El Maraghi M, El Din RZ, et al. Building hospital management capacity to improve patient flow for cardiac catheterization at a cardiovascular hospital in Egypt. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2012;38(4):147–53. Epub 2012/04/27. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(12)38019-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kebede S, Mantopoulos J, Ramanadhan S, Cherlin E, Gebeyehu M, Lawson R, et al. Educating leaders in hospital management: a pre-post study in Ethiopian hospitals. Glob Public Health. 2012;7(2):164–74. Epub 2011/01/25. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2010.542171 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mutale W, Stringer J, Chintu N, Chilengi R, Mwanamwenge MT, Kasese N, et al. Application of balanced scorecard in the evaluation of a complex health system intervention: 12 months post intervention findings from the BHOMA intervention: a cluster randomised trial in Zambia. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e93977. Epub 2014/04/23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093977 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Heerdegen ACS, Aikins M, Amon S, Agyemang SA, Wyss K. Managerial capacity among district health managers and its association with district performance: A comparative descriptive study of six districts in the Eastern Region of Ghana. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227974. Epub 2020/01/23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fetene N, Canavan ME, Megentta A, Linnander E, Tan AX, Nadew K, et al. District-level health management and health system performance. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0210624. Epub 2019/02/02. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210624 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nambiar B, Hargreaves DS, Morroni C, Heys M, Crowe S, Pagel C, et al. Improving health-care quality in resource-poor settings. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95(1):76–8. Epub 2017/01/06. doi: 10.2471/BLT.16.170803 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Brinkerhoff DW. Accountability and health systems: toward conceptual clarity and policy relevance. Health Policy Plan. 2004;19(6):371–9. Epub 2004/10/02. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czh052 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gullo S, Galavotti C, Sebert Kuhlmann A, Msiska T, Hastings P, Marti CN. Effects of the Community Score Card approach on reproductive health service-related outcomes in Malawi. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232868. Epub 2020/05/20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gullo S, Galavotti C, Altman L. A review of CARE’s Community Score Card experience and evidence. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(10):1467–78. Epub 2016/11/02. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czw064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gunderson JM, Wieland ML, Quirindongo-Cedeno O, Asiedu GB, Ridgeway JL, O’Brien MW, et al. Community Health Workers as an Extension of Care Coordination in Primary Care: A Community-Based Cosupervisory Model. J Ambul Care Manage. 2018;41(4):333–40. Epub 2018/07/18. doi: 10.1097/JAC.0000000000000255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Scott K, Beckham SW, Gross M, Pariyo G, Rao KD, Cometto G, et al. What do we know about community-based health worker programs? A systematic review of existing reviews on community health workers. Hum Resour Health. 2018;16(1):39. Epub 2018/08/18. doi: 10.1186/s12960-018-0304-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Witmer A, Seifer SD, Finocchio L, Leslie J, O’Neil EH. Community health workers: integral members of the health care work force. Am J Public Health. 1995;85(8 Pt 1):1055–8. Epub 1995/08/01. doi: 10.2105/ajph.85.8_pt_1.1055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000985.r001

Decision Letter 0

Alinane Linda Nyondo-Mipando

9 May 2022

PGPH-D-22-00040

Improving Access to Health Services Through Health Reform in Lesotho: Progress Made Towards Achieving Universal Health Coverage

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Lao-Tzu Allan-Blitz

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I agree with the reviewers that there is need to add more information in the methods section and be explicit on what was done and that should trickle to the presentation of the results which will also have a bearing on the discussion. Once this is clarified, it will highlight the assertions you are making in the conclusion.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 18 June 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alinane Linda Nyondo-Mipando, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS:

1. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

2. In the online submission form, you indicated that "Data are available upon request". All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

3. We noticed that you used “data not shown”/"unpublished data" in the manuscript. We do not allow these references, as the PLOS data access policy requires that all data be either published with the manuscript or made available in a publicly accessible database. Please amend the supplementary material to include the referenced data or remove the references.

4. All figures and supporting information files will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their article and are responsible for third-party content used in the article. 

Figure 1: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map used and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. 

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. 

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps: 

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl) 

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

Please upload any written confirmation as an 'Other' file type. It must clarify that the copyright holder understands and agrees to the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license; general permission forms that do not specify permission to publish under the CC BY 4.0 will not be accepted. Note that uploading an email confirmation is acceptable.

5. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format. Kindly, removed them from the manuscript file.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirements 

6. We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list. 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I don't know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for this opportunity to provide a peer review for this interesting manuscript titled “Improving Access to Health Services through Health Reform in Lesotho: progress made towards achieving Universal Health Coverage.”

The study basically set out to assess changes in quality metrics from Pre- to Post-National Health Reform during the period of 2013 to 2017 in the Kingdom of Lesotho. A baseline assessment was done in 70 facilities in four districts of Lesotho (making up catchment area of about 40% of the country’s population). The study observed improvements in Maternal health outcomes, HIV diagnostic capacity, and Childhood Immunization Rates. This study makes a case for encouraging and supporting further research into strategies utilized for implementation of multi-faceted health system strengthening interventions especially in developing countries.

The fact that the study aims to assess the impact of Health Reforms in a developing country; an area where there is paucity of data is something to be encouraged. There are however areas that the Authors need to clarify in my opinion.

1. In the Methods Section, three areas were referred to as having deficits; namely supply-chain, district managerial capacity and Village Health Worker program. My observation is that there are no results to show if there was any difference in these areas after the National Health Reforms were introduced.

2. The authors may wish to explain how they were able to arrive at the number of Health Facilities to evaluate, and how they came about the specific facilities and the Regions in Lesotho.

3. The authors may wish to mention measures taken to ensure comparability between the results of the two assessments (Pre and Post National Health Reform).

4. The conclusion by the authors that there was “improvement in health outcomes among Maternal and Child health, as well as HIV testing and availability of essential health commodities” may be difficult to justify, as essentially what the study reported was an increase in utilization rates.

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity given me.

Kind Regards.

Reviewer #2: Provide study data

What was the study design? Was this a quasi-experimental study? (A controlled or uncontrolled before-and-after study)? If so, please state the duration of the reform period and at what point the endline assessment was done.

Study results in abstract are reported as absolute numbers yet project aimed to improve metrics that are reported in rates (to cater for population size changes). Please revise e.g. instead of reporting on number of new ANC attendances, you could report on proportion of expected new ANC attendance per number of estimated pregnancies; or for immunisation, immunisation coverage instead of absolute numbers.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000985.r003

Decision Letter 1

Hamish R Graham

18 Aug 2022

PGPH-D-22-00040R1

Improving Access to Health Services Through Health Reform in Lesotho: Progress Made Towards Achieving Universal Health Coverage

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Lao-Tzu Allan-Blitz

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your report is interesting and includes a detailed description of what sounds like a very important set of health system strengthening activities. As it currently stands it is not written adequately as an Original Research article and will require very substantial changes to meet our publication standards. If you do not wish to make such substantive changes, I would suggest writing it up as a Field Report (for a different journal), rather than original research, as this will allow you to focus on description of intervention and present general results without expecting the scientific rigour of original research (but it would need to be much shorter).

If you wish to pursue publication as Original Research in PLoS GPH, please review again the comments by the previous Editor and Reviewers, and my additional comments here. I acknowledge that you have partially addressed some of the previous comments but there are still major deficiencies in your reporting, particularly of Methods. I will try and be frank and clear about what these issue are and what you need to do about them.

  • Please refer to a reporting standard, such as STROBE or TREND. Include the completed reporting standard checklist with your revised submission. 

  • Pay particular attention to the reporting elements needed in the Methods section. You have provided a very long description of the development and content of the intended intervention - this can be heavily cut (with details in supplement). You have provided almost no information on the outcomes, data collection, or analysis. For example, what were the primary/secondary outcomes, why did you select these (and not others). You say you did 'time series' analysis, but provide no details - and the results do not present any time series analysis results. Please address each of the essential reporting elements in full.

  • The Introduction can be heavily cut. Please include a clear Objective and/or Hypothesis that you seek to test.

  • Please include the study protocol as a supplemental file, and data analysis plan if available. And make clear in the reporting where you deviated from the pre-specified protocol (including how the intervention evolved over time, and differences in the data you collected, how you analysed it and reported it). Most health systems interventions will not have been delivered (or evaluated) exactly as planned - and this is important information to disclose.

  • Your authorship list is overwhelmingly US-centric. You cite involvement of the MOHSW in planning, implementation, and data collection. I find it concerning that you did not involve MOHSW in authorship, both from a research validity perspective (they will understand things you do not) and from a research impact perspective (they will be prime users of this data). Please provide explanation in your Reflexivity statement about why you included only a single author from Lesotho and no government partners. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by 04 August 2022.  If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hamish Graham, MBBS, MPH, MSSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. "Allan-Blitz - Figure 1 - 5.25.22.tiff", "Allan-Blitz - Figure 2 - 5.25.22.tiff", "Allan-Blitz - Figure 3 - 5.25.22.tiff", and "Allan-Blitz - Figure 4 - 5.25.22.tiff" files are over our file size limit of 10MB. Please reduce the file size to no more than 10MB. For further help on compressing figures visit: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures

2. Please include your main table (Table 1) as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual file. Please note that supplementary tables should remain as separate "Supporting Information" files.

3. We noticed that you used “unpublished”/“unpublished data” in the manuscript. We do not allow these references, as the PLOS data access policy requires that all data be either published with the manuscript or made available in a publicly accessible database. Please amend the supplementary material to include the referenced data or remove the references.

4. Please update your online Competing Interests statement. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state: “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.”

5. Please amend your online detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

a. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000985.r005

Decision Letter 2

Hamish R Graham

11 Oct 2022

Improving Access to Health Services Through Health Reform in Lesotho: Progress Made Towards Achieving Universal Health Coverage

PGPH-D-22-00040R2

Dear Dr. Allan-Blitz,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Improving Access to Health Services Through Health Reform in Lesotho: Progress Made Towards Achieving Universal Health Coverage' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Hamish R Graham

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. The table contains the raw, facility-level data, which was used to generate the results in the manuscript.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Text. This document is the 2019 annual report on technical support authored by Partners in Health regarding the pharmacy and medical supply chain management detailing augmentation of cold chain capacity for five health centers to appropriately store several life-saving medicines, as well as the interim outcomes for antenatal care visits, facility-based deliveries, and inter-facility transfer of complex cases.

    (PDF)

    S2 Text. This supplement provides additional details regarding the interventions done as a part of the national health reform.

    It further includes a table demonstrating the three core areas identified as needs during the National Health Reform: Service Delivery, Health System Managerial Capacity, and the Professional Village Health Worker Program, and lists specific areas for targeted for improvement within each area. Those areas became the focus of the interventions within the National Health Reform.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Text. This supplement provides the detailed study protocol.

    Deviations from the protocol are highlighted in the methods section of the text.

    (PDF)

    S4 Text. This supplement includes the standardized survey questions for key stakeholders as well as the data collection tool from which our outcome variables of interest were derived.

    (PDF)

    S1 Checklist. This supplement provides the STROBE checklist for reporting guidelines.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Allan-Blitz - Response Letter - 5.31.22.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Allan-Blitz - Response Letter - 9.28.22.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES