Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2022 May 24;2(5):e0000517. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000517

Multilevel analysis of continuation of maternal healthcare services utilization and its associated factors in Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

Eshetu E Chaka 1,*
Editor: Zohra S Lassi2
PMCID: PMC10022002  PMID: 36962425

Abstract

Continuum of care (CoC) has been recognized as a crucial strategy for minimizing maternal, neonatal, and child mortality. CoC promotes integrated Maternal Neonatal and Child Health (MNCH) services by linking together three aspects of maternal health care antenatal care, skilled birth attendance, and postnatal care. The study aimed to assess continuation of maternal healthcare services utilization and its associated factors among reproductive age women at pregnancy, delivery and postnatal stages in Ethiopia. Cross-sectional study design conducted using Ethiopian 2016 Demographic and Health Survey data. All women with the most recent live birth in the last five years preceding the 2016 survey were the study population. The sample size was 7590, 2415, and 1342 at service entry (ANC use), COC at a delivery level, and CoC at Postpartum level respectively. COC was measured at three levels of maternal health care (during pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum). The CoC is constructed from four or more antenatal care visits (ANC4+), skilled birth attendance (SBA), and postnatal care (PNC). About 9.1% of women received all components of CoC. Educational attainment, wealth quintile, and media exposure were associated with four or more antenatal care visits and COC at the delivery level. Perception of getting money for healthcare, having blood pressure measured and urine sample taken during ANC was associated with continuity of care at the delivery level and continuity of care at a postpartum level. Birth order, residence, and region were common factors associated with each outcome of interest. The proportion of women who received all ANC4+, SBA, and PNC across the CoC was low in Ethiopia. Effort needed to increase CoC at each stage. The study shows that focusing on place of residence and regional state variation is necessary to improve CoC at each level. Thus, contextualizing the strategies and further research are critical.

Introduction

Although the maternal, neonatal and child health problem have attained the top agenda of the international community, they continue to be a serious issue [1, 2]. A worldwide estimate showed that over 5.6 million women and babies died in 2015 due to complications during pregnancy, birth and in the first month of life [3]. Almost all maternal deaths occur in a low resource setting of which 62% account for sub-Saharan Africa.

Most deaths occur during labour, delivery and the immediate after delivery and the sad part is that these all deaths could be prevented with proven cost-effective interventions such as antenatal care (ANC), skilled birth attendants (SBA), and postnatal care (PNC). They are considered as crucial maternal health-care services for improving many health outcomes of mothers and babies [4, 5] because these services make sure early detection and management of complications [6]. Given the importance of each of the three maternal health services, recently there was a call for a continuum of care (CoC) for maternal and newborn health emphasizing on continuity of care over time for every woman and integrated service delivery in health facilities [7, 8].

A potent CoC links crucial maternal neonatal and child health (MNCH) interventions across the pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum stages. The advantages of a CoCat each stage builds on the success of the previous stage [9]. Therefore, the CoC is expected to reduce half a million maternal deaths, 4 million neonatal deaths, and 6 million child deaths [7]. A lack of appropriate care at any stage of a CoC is associated with poor MNCH outcomes [10, 11].

Although individual components of MNCH (ANC, SBA, or PNC) services have been studied, none of them have assessed MNCH services along the CoCusing multilevel analysis in Ethiopia. Thus, this study aimed to assess continuation of maternal healthcare services utilization and its associated factors among reproductive age women in Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

This study was approvedby the ethical committee of Tehran University of MedicalSciences (code number: IR.TUMS.SPH.REC.1396.4802).

Data sources, study populations and sampling

This cross-sectional study analyzed the 2016 Ethiopia Demographic Health Survey (DHS) existing data. The survey used a two-stagesstratified cluster sampling design to select eligible participants.The sampling frame for the survey was the lists of Enumeration areas (EAs) developed from the 2007 population and housing census. In the first stage, 645 (202 from Urban and 443 from rural areas) clusters/EAs were selected from the lists of EAs after stratification of the 11 regional states into urban and rural areas. In the second stage, on average of 24–32 households per cluster/EAs were selected. The survey includes a weighted probability sample of 16,650 households in which 7590 live births reported.Women aged 15–49 years who gave live birthsin the last five years preceding the 2016 surveywere the study population For women who had more than one live birth, only the most recent live birth was considered in this study to get the most recent information and minimize recall bias.

Variables

Outcome variables

The outcome variable is a continuum of care (CoC). The CoC constructed from four or more antenatal care visits (ANC4+), skilled birth attendance (SBA), and postnatal care (PNC). The SBA was defined as delivery assisted by a health professional (i.e., doctor, nurse/midwife or health officer) in line with the WHO policy guideline [12]. While PNC was defined as the mother’s postnatal care at least one visit after delivery at a health facility or at home. Therefore, the three components of CoC are:

  1. ANC4+: it was coded as 1 if a woman received ANC4+ for their most recent birth and 0 otherwise. (n = 7590)

  2. CoC at the delivery level:it was coded as ‘1’if women received ANC4+ and SBA and ‘0’ if the women received ANC4+, but did not receive SBA.(n = 2415)

  3. CoC at the postpartum level:it was coded as ‘1’ if women received all ANC4+, SBA and PNC and ‘0’ if women received ANC4+ and SBA, but did not receive PNC. (n = 1342)

Explanatory variables

Factors affecting each outcome variable were classified as individual and community variables.

Individual variables subgroup as First, Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of women include mother’s age at last birth, mother’s education, mother’s employment, marital status, religious, household wealth index, sex of household head, birth order and pregnancy wanted. Second, Access to healthcare services includes the perception of getting money for healthcare, and getting permission to go to health facility. Lastly, healthcare services utilization include blood pressure has measured, blood sample has taken, urine sample has taken during antenatal care visits, mother received tetanus injection during pregnancy, informed about pregnancy complication and place of delivery. While community variables were included residence, regional state, and distance to health facility

Statistical analysis

A two-level multilevel binary logistic analysis was employed in order to account for the hierarchical structure of the DHS data and the clustering of response at different levels. It also enables partitioning of the total variation in the outcome into within-group and between-group variances, which allows distinguishing the relative contributions of individual-level and community-level variables [13, 14].The following equation was used to explain the two-level multilevel model for a CoC in which individual woman nested within the community:

Logit(Pij)=β0+β1I+β2C+uj (1)

Where, Pij is the probability of the outcome of interest for woman i in the community j; the β’s are the fixed coefficients; I and C refer to individual and community-level independent variables respectively, anduj indicates the random effects for the jthcommunity.

Model specification

Model-1was fitted without explanatory variables. Model-2 fitted with individual-level variables. Lastly,model-3, was fitted using both individual-level variables and community-level variables to adjust for both level explanatory variables. All models were fitted sequentially for each outcome variable. Due to spatial considerations, this study reported only model-3.

Fixed effects refer to the individual and community covariates and were reported in terms of odds ratio (OR) with their p-value and 95% confidence intervals. The random effects are measure of variation in outcome variables across community and were reported using community-level variance (σ2u). The intra-cluster correlation Coefficient (ICC) and proportional change in variance (PCV) were used to examine clustering and the extent to which community factors explain the unexplained variance of the empty model. The ICC was calculated as:

ICC=σu2σu2+3.29 (2)

Where:σ2u is community-level variance (between-community variance) and 3.29 is individual level variance equal to π2/3 [15]. A backward variable selection strategy was used to select independent variables for the final model. A significance level of alpha < 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. All analysis was performed using STATA 13.

Ethics consideration

This study is a secondary data analysis of the Ethiopian DHS which is publicly available and permission has received from MEASURE DHS Data Archive at ICF International to conduct this study. After data access is authorized the researcher of this study has maintained the confidentiality of the data. The respondents consent was waived due to the secondary data nature however the survey reported that verbal consent was obtained for their participation. This study was approved by the ethical committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Results

The continuum of care

Nearly 32% of women received ANC4+ visits, 18% CoC at the delivery level and only 9% of women had CoC at a postpartum level among women gave live birth in the last five years preceding the survey in Ethiopia.

Bi-variate analysis of continuum of care

Table 1 showed that women in the younger age group were more likely to have received ANC4+ than older women. Women resided in the urban area, with higher educational level, and from richest household wealth quintile have received a higher proportion of ANC4+ visits. The highest proportion of ANC4+ visits was found among women living in Addis Ababa or Dire Dawa administrative.

Table 1. Distribution of ANC4+ visits byselected independent variables among women who had a live birth in the last five years preceding the survey (N = 7590).

Variables ANC4+ P-value
Yes (%) No (%)
Mother’s age at last birth 0.001
15–24 30.9 69.1
25–34 34.7 65.3
35–49 27.0 73.0
Mother’s Educational status 0.001
No education 24.1 75.9
Primary 38.5 61.5
Secondary or Above 66.3 33.7
Marital status 0.196
Not married/in union 35.9 64.1
Married /in union 31.5 68.5
Women’s employment status 0.001
Unemployed 29.6 70.4
Agricultural employed 31.5 68.5
Unskilled manual 51.8 48.2
Formal employed 41.6 58.4
Religion Affiliation 0.001
Orthodox 39.0 61.0
Protestant or other 30.0 70.0
Muslim 25.7 74.3
Household wealth quintile 0.001
Poorest 18.4 81.6
Poor 25.3 74.7
Middle 28.1 71.9
Rich 36.2 63.8
Richest 57.4 42.6
Regional state 0.001
Oromia 22.1 77.9
SNNP 38.2 61.8
Amhara 31.5 68.5
AA/Dire Dawa 85.8 14.2
Tigray 56.5 43.5
Others 20.8 79.2
Residence 0.001
Urban 62.7 37.3
Rural 27.3 72.7
Exposed to media 0.001
No 25.0 75.0
Yes 44.8 55.2
Sex of Household head 0.067
Male 31.2 68.8
Female 35.5 64.5
Birth Order of last birth 0.001
First 42.0 58.0
2–3 35.4 64.6
4–5 29.9 70.1
6+ 22.6 77.4
Pregnancy Desired 0.004
Yes 33.2 66.8
Yes but later 29.8 70.2
No more 24.2 75.8
Getting permission to go to a health facility 0.001
Big problem 23.4 76.6
Not a big problem 36.6 63.4
Getting money 0.001
Big Problem 26.8 73.2
Not a big problem 39.4 60.6
Distance to health facility 0.001
Big problem 25.1 74.9
Not a big problem 41.0 59.0

Table 2 showed that CoC at the delivery level increased by women’s education and household wealth quintile. Women with birth order 2–3, 4–5 and 6+ were less likely to have CoC at a delivery level compared to those with first birth order. CoC at a delivery level was higher among women resided in urban areas than those residing in rural areas. The lowest proportion of CoC at the delivery level was found in Oromia regional state and the highest was in Addis Ababa.

Table 2. Distribution of CoC at the delivery level by selected explanatory variables (N = 2415).

Variables CoC at delivery level P-value
Yes No
Mother’s age at last birth 0.078
15–24 61.4 38.6
25–34 54.3 45.7
35–49 52.6 47.4
Mother’s Educational status 0.001
No education 40.9 59.1
Primary 58.2 41.8
Secondary or Above 89.9 10.1
Marital status 0.904
Not married/in union 54.9 45.1
Married /in union 55.6 44.4
Women’s employment status 0.001
Unemployed 51.7 48.3
Agricultural employed 52.7 47.3
Unskilled manual 72.6 27.4
Formal employed 75.7 24.3
Religion Affiliation 0.001
Orthodox 66.4 33.6
Protestant or other 42.5 57.5
Muslim 49.1 50.9
Household wealth index 0.001
Poorest 31.0 69.0
Poor 39.2 60.8
Middle 42.5 57.5
Rich 49.2 50.8
Richest 87.9 12.1
Regional state 0.001
Oromia 44.3 55.7
SNNP 46.4 53.6
Amhara 52.2 47.8
Addis Ababa/Dire Dawa 94.1 5.9
Tigray 80.3 19.7
Others 55.6 44.4
Residence 0.001
Urban 92.5 7.5
Rural 43.2 56.8
Exposed to media 0.001
No 40.0 60.0
Yes 72.1 27.9
Sex of Household Head 0.006
Male 53.8 46.2
Female 64.4 35.6
Birth order of last birth 0.001
First 73.0 27.0
2–3 58.9 41.1
4–5 48.0 52.0
6+ 36.4 63.6
Pregnancy desired 0.995
Yes 55.6 44.4
Yes but later 55.5 44.5
No more 55.1 44.9
Getting permission to go to a health facility 0.001
Big problem 42.0 58.0
Not a big problem 60.5 39.5
Getting money 0.001
Big Problem 44.9 55.1
Not a big problem 66.4 33.6
Distance to health facility 0.001
Big problem 41.6 58.4
Not a big problem 67.5 32.5
Told about pregnancy complication 0.001
No 46.9 53.1
Yes 63.0 37.0
Blood pressure measured during ANC visits 0.001
No 32.0 38.0
Yes 61.2 38.8
A blood sample taken during ANC visits 0.001
No 27.8 72.2
Yes 62.4 37.6
A urine sample taken during ANC visits 0.001
No 28.2 71.8
Yes 64.2 35.8
Received tetanus injection during ANC 0.277
No 52.2 47.8
Yes 56.5 43.5

Table 3 showed that formally employed women were more likely to CoC at a postpartum level than those women agriculturally employed. A lowerproportionofCoC at postpartum level was found in Oromia regional state compared to Tigray regional state and Addis Ababa.

Table 3. Distribution of Completion CoC at the postpartum level by explanatory variables (N = 1342).

Variables COC at postpartum level
Yes No P-value
Mother’s age at last birth 0.369
15–24 47.4 52.6
25–34 54.0 46.0
35–49 50.6 49.4
Mother’s Educational status 0.672
No education 49.8 50.2
Primary 51.5 48.5
Secondary or Above 54.0 46.0
Marital status 0.038
Not married/in union 65.5 34.5
Married 50.6 49.4
Women’s employment status 0.057
Unemployed 51.8 48.2
Agricultural employed 46.0 54.0
Unskilled manual 53.0 47.0
Formal employed 62.4 37.6
Religion Affiliation 0.012
Orthodox 57.4 42.6
Protestant or other 46.5 53.5
Muslim 43.0 57.0
Household wealth index 0.091
Poorest 48.2 51.8
Poor 45.6 54.4
Middle 56.7 43.3
Rich 42.5 57.5
Richest 55.9 44.1
Regional state 0.001
Oromia 34.5 65.5
SNNP 48.7 51.3
Amhara 48.7 51.3
Addis Ababa& Dire Dawa 64.4 35.6
Tigray 64.5 35.5
Others 54.4 45.6
Residence 0.174
Urban 54.8 45.2
Rural 49.3 50.7
Exposed to media 0.088
No 46.8 53.2
Yes 54.5 45.5
Sex of Household Head 0.018
Male 49.4 50.6
Female 61.1 38.9
Birth order of last birth 0.432
First 47.7 52.3
2–3 55.5 44.5
4–5 50.9 49.1
6+ 52.0 48.0
Place of delivery 0.009
Home 23.3 76.7
Health facility 52.4 47.6
Pregnancy Desired 0.247
Yes 50.7 49.3
Yes but later 58.1 41.9
No more 46.5 53.5
Getting permission to go to health facility 0.001
Big problem 38.1 61.9
Not a big problem 55.0 45.0
Getting money 0.007
Big Problem 44.9 55.1
Not a big problem 56.3 43.7
Distance to health facility 0.039
Big problem 45.8 54.2
Not a big problem 54.6 45.4
Told about pregnancy complication 0.001
No 40.9 59.1
Yes 58.4 41.6
Blood pressure measured during ANC 0.001
No 20.0 80.0
Yes 55.6 44.4
A blood sample is taken during ANC 0.001
No 32.0 68.0
Yes 53.7 46.3
A urine sample is taken during ANC 0.001
No 33.2 66.8
Yes 54.2 45.8
Received tetanus injection during ANC 0.003
No 40.8 59.2
Yes 54.3 45.7

Marital status and sex of household head were significantly associated with CoC at the postpartum level, with married women and male-head household exhibiting the lower CoC at a postpartum level compared to their counterparts. The likelihood of CoC at postpartum level was higher among women gave birth in the health facility compared to those gave birth at home.

The antenatal care quality indicators were significantly associated with the completion of CoC. For example, the CoC at postpartum level is higher among women that had their blood pressure measured during antenatal care than not measured.

Multi-level model analysis

The result of the random effect in each model was shown in Table 4. There were significant community-level variations in each conditional component of CoC across communities. For example, in model-1 (intercept-only model) ICC showed considerable variation in the CoC across communities (24.0% - 58.3%), which is due to cultural, social and economic differences across communities. The ICC in the adjusted multilevel model-3 reduced to 16.3%, 33.8%, and 20.4% in the ANC4+, CoC at the delivery level and CoC at postpartum level respectively. However ICC decreased along each model, the variation remained significant. This indicates the presence of unobserved factors in the study.

Table 4. Random effect estimates of multilevel model for each outcome variable.

Random effect Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
ANC4+
Community random Variance (SE) 1.67(0.18)*** 0.89(0.10)*** 0.64(0.08)***
ICC 33.7% 21.3% 16.3%
PCV Reference 46.8% 61.7%
CoC at delivery level
Community random Variance (SE) 4.60(0.64)*** 1.89(0.31)*** 1.68(0.29)***
ICC 58.3% 36.5% 33.8%
PCV Reference 58.9% 63.5%
CoC at postpartum level
Community random Variance (SE) 1.03(0 .22)*** 0.95(0.23)*** 0.84(0.21)***
ICC 24.0% 22.4% 20.4%
PCV Reference 7.8 18.4

SE = Standard error ICC = Intra-class correlation PCV = Proportion of change in variance

*** p<0.001

At the individual-level variables, odds of ANC4+ visitswas 1.51 times and 1.33 times higher among women aged 25–34 and 35–49 compared to those aged 15–24 respectively. Similarly, the odds of ANC4+ visit were increased by the mother’s education level and wealth quintile. However, odds of ANC4+ visits decreased along with birth order (Table 5).

Table 5. Multivariate multilevel logistic model of achievement of ANC4+ visits; CoC at delivery level; and CoC at postpartum level and adjusted odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval.

Variables ANC4+ CoC at deliver level CoC at Postpartum level
Fixed effect AOR (95%CI) AOR (95%CI) AOR (95%CI)
Individual-level variables
Mother’s age at last birth
15–24 1.00 1.00 1.00
25–34 1.51(1.26, 1.80)*** 1.13 (0.86,1.46) 1.07(0.72, 1.59)
35–49 1.33 (1.04, 1.70)* 1.27 (0.75, 2.14) 0.73(0.41, 1.30)
Mother’s Educational status
No education 1.00 1.00
Primary 1.61 (1.39, 1.87)*** 1.12(0.83, 1.51)
Secondary or Above 2.57(1.98,3.32)*** 2.71(1.62, 4.53)**
Marital status
Not married/in union 1.00 1.00
Married /in union 2.02(1.20, 3.40)** 0.57(0.32, 1.02)
Women’s employment status
Agricultural employed 1.00
Unemployed 1.56(1.12, 2.17)**
Unskilled manual 2.04(1.02, 4.05)*
Formal employed 2.14(1.37, 3.35)**
Religion Affiliation
Orthodox 1.00 1.00
Protestant or other 0.83(0.65, 1.07) 1.43(0.84, 2.45)
Muslim 1.02(0.81,1.29) 0.82(0.53, 1.25)
Exposed to media
No 1.00 1.00
Yes 1.15(1.00, 1.33)* 1.42(1.07, 1.89)*
Household wealth quintile
Poorest 1.00 1.00 1.00
Poor 1.35(1.10, 1.65)** 1.37(0.89, 2.12) 1.06(0.55, 2.05)
Middle 1.42(1.15,1.75)** 1.31(0.84,2.04) 1.88(0.97, 3.66)
Rich 1.89(1.52. 2.35)*** 1.15(0.72,1.83) 0.87(0.46,1.66)
Richest 2.06(1.55, 2.74)*** 2.60(1.44,4.70)** 1.70(0.84, 3.42)
Sex of household head
Male 1.00
Female 1.58 (1.08, 2.31)*
Birth order of last birth
First 1.00 1.00 1.00
2–3 0.81(0.68, 0.98)* 0.42(0.29,0.61)*** 1.78(1.22, 2.54)**
4–5 0.89(.71, 1.12) 0.44(0.28, .70)** 2.29(1.37, 3.84)**
6+ 0.70(.54, 0.91)** 0.32(0.18,0.55)*** 2.47(1.31, 4.69)**
Pregnancy wanted
Yes 1.00
Yes but later 0.63(0.53, 0.74)***
No more 0.64(0.51, 0.80)***
Told about pregnancy complication NA
No 1.00 1.00
Yes 1.19(0.92, 1.54) 1.57(1.16,2.11)**
Blood pressure measured during ANC visits NA
No 1.00 1.00
Yes 1.58(1.12, 2.23)** 4.31(2.47,7.52)***
Urine sample taken during ANC visits NA
No 1.00 1.00
Yes 2.04(1.48, 2.80)*** 1.66(1.02, 2.74)*
Received tetanus injection during ANC NA
No 1.00
Yes 2.04(1.42, 2.92)***
Place of delivery NA NA
Home 1.00
Health facility 4.85(1.75, 13.37)**
Getting Permission
Big Problem 1.00
Not a big problem 1.12(0.96, 1.31)
Getting money
Big Problem 1.00 1.00
Not a big problem 1.36(1.03, 1.80)* 1.40(1.03,1.90)*
Community-level variables
Distance to health facility
Big problem 1.00 1.00
Not a big problem 1.08(0.93, 1.25) 1.18(0.87, 1.60)
Residence
Urban 1.00 1.00 1.00
Rural 0.50(0.35, 0.72)*** 0.16(0.08, .33)*** 2.07(1.14, 3.76)*
Regional state
Oromia 1.00 1.00 1.00
SNNP 2.44(1.75, 3.39)*** 1.60(0.90,2.84) 1.67(0.89, 3.15)
Amhara 1.33(0.94,1.87) 1.07(0.58, 1.98) 2.43(1.26, 4.67)**
Addis Ababa/Dire Dawa 7.12(4.12,12.30)*** 3.30 (1.22,8.91)* 3.63(1.83, 7.20)***
Tigray 4.51 (3.04, 6.70)*** 7.09(3.59, 13.99)*** 3.63(1.88,7.01)***
Others 0.91(0.63, 1.33) 1.46(.69,3.08) 2.54 (1.13,5.72)*
Model fit statistics
Deviance 7859.21 2205.95 1579.90
AIC 7911.21 2255.95 1639.89

*p<0.05

**p< 0.01

*** p<0.001

Note SNNP = Southern Nation and Nationalities People, AIC = Akaike Information Criterion, AOR = Adjusted Odds ratio

At the individual-level variables, mother attended secondary or higher education was 2.71 times more likely to have CoC at delivery level (95%CI: 1.62–4.53) as compared with no education. Birth order was significantly associated with CoC at the delivery level. The finding also shows that married women were more likely to CoC at the delivery level than not married/in the union.

Antenatal care quality indicators were significantly associated with CoC at the delivery level. The odds of CoC at delivery level was 58.0% higher if blood pressure was measured (OR = 1.58; 95%CI: 1.12–2.23) and twice more likely if urine sample was taken (OR = 2.04; 95%CI: 1.48, 2.80) during antenatal care compared with their counterparts (Table 5).

The household wealth quintile and exposure to media showed a significant positive association with CoC at the delivery level. Women from richest wealth quintile were 2.60 times significantly more likely (95%CI: 1.44, 4.70) to CoC at a delivery level compared with women from poorest wealth quintile. The odds of CoC at the delivery level was 1.42 times more likely among women exposed to media than not exposed (Table 5).

Maternal age at last birth, religious affiliation, sex of household head, distance to health facility, told about pregnancy complication and a blood sample was taken were not significantly associated with CoC at the delivery level.

At the Community-level, the odds of CoC at the delivery level was 84% less likely among women from rural areas while it was 7 times more likely among women from Tigray regional state compared to their counterparts (Table 5).

At the individual level, mother’s employment, place of delivery and birth order were significantly associated with the CoC at postpartum level. The odds of CoC at postpartum level was 1.56 times higher among unemployed women and 2.04 times among unskilled employed women compared to those agriculturallyemployed.Similarly, CoCat postpartum level was 4.85 times more likely among women who gave birth in a health facility than women gave birth at home. Women with 2–3, 4–5 and 6+ birth order were more likely to have CoC at a postpartum level than first birth order (Table 5).

Sex of household head and getting money for healthcare services were also associated with the CoC at postpartum level. Women from female-headed households were 58% more likely to have CoC at a postpartum level as compared to women from male-headed households. The likelihood of CoC at postpartum level was 40% more likely among women who can get money for maternal health care compared to those had a difficult to get money.

The antenatal care quality indicators were significantly associated with the CoC at postpartum level. For example, CoC at postpartum level was 4.31 times and 2.04 times more likely among women who had blood pressure measured and if women received tetanus injection during ANC visits. Further, the odds of CoC at postpartum level was 57% higher if a woman was told about pregnancy complication during antenatal care visits (Table 5).

Individual-level variables such as mother’s education, household wealth index, religion, marital status, exposure to media, and maternal age at last birth were not significantly associated with CoC at postpartum level.

Community-levelvariables, place of residence and regional state were significantly associated with the CoC at postpartum level. After controlling for the contribution of all the individual- and community-level factors, surprisingly the odds of CoC at postpartum level was twice higher among women residing in a rural area compared to reside in an urban area.

Discussion

The purpose of this is to assess the continuation of maternal healthcare services and associated factors associated at pregnancy, delivery and postpartum level.

Nearly 32.0% of women received ANC4+, 18.0% have COC at delivery level, and only 9.1% have CoC at a postpartum level in Ethiopia. The results highlighted that educational attainment, wealth quintile, and media exposure were associated with four or more antenatal care visits and continuity of care at the delivery level. Perception of getting money for healthcare, had blood pressure measured and urine sample taken during antenatal care was associated with continuity of care at the delivery level and continuity of care at a postpartum level. The study identified that birth order, residence, and regional state were the common factors significantly associated with each three outcome variables.

The results showed that ANC4+ was significantly associated with the mother’s age and whether pregnancy planned. Previous studies have also reported that the odds of ANC4+visits higher among women with planned pregnancy and older age [16, 17]. In the study, most educated women and those from higher wealth quintile were more likely to have ANC4+ visits. The possible explanation is that educated women usually have high knowledge about ANC and more access to get ANC services. Moreover, education empower women to control their health care and encourage to access quality maternal health care. This finding was consistent with the previous study [1620]. However, it was inconsistent with other study reported the reverse direction of association [21].

Birth order and residence were significantly associated with ANC4+ visits. This is consistent with previous studies that reportedwomen with 2–3 and 6+ birth order were less likely to have ANC4+ visits as compared to the first birth order [16, 17, 22] because women might consider themselves as they have sufficient knowledge and experience with pregnancy. Moreover, women resided in rural areas were less likely to have ANC4+ visits in line with the previous studies [18, 23, 24]. However, some previous studies failed to report a significant association between residence and ANC4+ visits [16, 17, 22, 25].

In this study, CoC at the delivery level was significantly associated with the mother’s education and wealth quintile. This finding is consistent with previous studies that reported increased CoC at the delivery level by educational level and wealth quintile [18, 26, 27]. However, one study reported none significant association [28].

Women with 2–3, 4–5 and 6+ birth order were less likely to have CoC at the delivery level. This finding congruent with the previous studies in which women with first birth order were more likely to have CoC at delivery level [18, 26, 27]. These women might have trouble accessing services because of childcare, having fewer resources due to large family size or their maternal health care experiences from a previous birth. In contrast to this finding, one study reported the absence of association [28].

Many other previous studies reported that there were significant disparities in the CoC at delivery level by regional state and place of residence [18, 26, 27]. Women resided in rural areas and living in a region with a dispersed population were less likely to continued care up to the delivery level as our study reported. Some of the reasons suggested include the rural area’s dispersed nature, a limited supply of health facilities, and a long distance from health services.

Exposed to media and perception of getting money for healthcare service were increased the odds of CoC at the delivery level and supported by previous studies elsewhere [18, 27]. Women’s knowledge of health care needs during birth, as well as the availability and accessibility of such services, is influenced by media exposure. Furthermore, media exposure is critical for bridging knowledge gaps and dispelling any myths or misconceptions that may exist.

The study also showed that women who had blood pressure measured and urine sample have taken during antenatal care visits have increased odds of CoC at the delivery level. This findings supported bythe previous study and argued that women with high-quality antenatal care become better informed about pregnancy and more likely to recognize the importance of skilled delivery care [26].

In contrast to prior studies, CoC at the postpartum levelwas significantly associated withwomen’s employment status [9, 18].In line with other studies, mother’s education status [26, 29, 30], wealth quintile [29], and distance from health facility [26, 29]were not significantly associated with CoC at postpartum level as other studies have found.

However, being from higher wealth quintile[18, 2628, 31],having a highereducational level [18, 27, 28, 31], and being exposed to mass media [18, 28, 30]were significantly associated with CoCat a postpartum level in other studies. An educated woman able to make better maternla health decisions and more likley to have the financial to pay for maternla health care without having rely on their husbands.

In line with prior study conducted in Cambodia [9, 26, 29], the mother’s age at last birth was not significantly associated with the CoC at a postpartum level in this study. The findings, however, contradict those of studies conducted in Pakistan and Ghana [18, 30].Previous studies have shown that women who had birth in a health facility [26, 28] and perceived getting money for healthcare services [27] were more likely to have CoC at the postpartum level in this study.

In terms of birth order, several prior studies found no association between birth order and CoC at postpartum level [2628], however, a study in Pakistan found that women with lower birth order were more likely to have CoC at postpartum level [18]. In this study, however, women with a higher birth order (> 3 births) were more likely to have CoC at the postpartum level.

Women who received maternalhealthcare service during ANC visits were more likely to have CoC at the postpartum level. Other prior studies [26, 28] backed up this conclusion. In reality, women are better informed about pregnancy and understand the importance of each service provided.

At the communitylevel, women’s place of residence and regional state were significantly associated with the COC at the postpartum level. However, the place of residence was not significantly associated with CoC at a postpartum level in the previous study [18, 26, 27]. Regional variation in CoC at the postpartum level reported in previous study [18, 27] due to the dispersed population over a larger area, poor infrastructure and no access to healthcare services.

The study main strength is that it used nationally representative data to inform planners and decision makers about how to strengthen the continuum of maternal health care in Ethiopia. This study, however, has a few limitations. First, the study used a cross-sectional study design and collected data of last five years which is prone to recall bias. Second, it employed primary sampling unit (PSU) as a proxy of community boundaries. The use of the DHS primary sampling unit as the community boundary may lead to selection bias. Finally, this study did not cover all relevant factors (e.g. quality of healthcare services).

Conclusion

The proportion of women who received all ANC4+, SBA, and PNC across the CoC was low in Ethiopia. This study indicated the need for an effort to increase the continuum of care by promoting the next stage services during each previous stage. Birth order, place of residence, and regional state were the common factors significantly associated with the components of CoC at each level, whereas other factors were specific to each level of continuum of care. Therefore, the study suggests that a need for strategies that should be targeted at specific factors promoting CoC. This study also revealed the necessity to contextualize the strategies and explore the factors responsible for the unexplained variance in CoC. Thus, more study is needed to identify those factors.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the study participants, interviewers and Measure DHS project for providing the datasets for this analysis.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Hogan MC, Foreman KJ, Naghavi M, Ahn SY, Wang M, Makela SM, et al. (2010) Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980–2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5. The lancet 375: 1609–1623. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60518-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rajaratnam JK, Marcus JR, Flaxman AD, Wang H, Levin-Rector A, Dwyer L, et al. (2010) Neonatal, postneonatal, childhood, and under-5 mortality for 187 countries, 1970–2010: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 4. The Lancet 375: 1988–2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Kinney MV, Bianchi F, Graham WJ (2016) Evidence to inform the future for maternal and newborn health. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 36: 169–183. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Carroli G, Rooney C, Villar J (2001) How effective is antenatal care in preventing maternal mortality and serious morbidity? An overview of the evidence. Paediatric and perinatal Epidemiology 15: 1–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hollowell J, Oakley L, Kurinczuk JJ, Brocklehurst P, Gray R (2011) The effectiveness of antenatal care programmes to reduce infant mortality and preterm birth in socially disadvantaged and vulnerable women in high-income countries: a systematic review. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 11: 13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-11-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tunçalp Ö, Moller A-B, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. The Lancet Global Health 2: e323–e333. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kerber KJ, de Graft-Johnson JE, Bhutta ZA, Okong P, Starrs A, Lawn JE (2007) Continuum of care for maternal, newborn, and child health: from slogan to service delivery. The Lancet 370: 1358–1369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tinker A, ten Hoope-Bender P, Azfar S, Bustreo F, Bell R (2005) A continuum of care to save newborn lives. The Lancet 365: 822–825. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71016-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yeji F, Shibanuma A, Oduro A, Debpuur C, Kikuchi K, Owusu-Agei S, et al. (2015) Continuum of care in a maternal, newborn and child health program in Ghana: Low completion rate and multiple obstacle factors. PloS one 10: e0142849. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142849 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lassi ZS, Majeed A, Rashid S, Yakoob MY, Bhutta ZA (2013) The interconnections between maternal and newborn health–evidence and implications for policy. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 26: 3–53. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.784737 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Titaley CR, Dibley MJ, Agho K, Roberts CL, Hall J (2008) Determinants of neonatal mortality in Indonesia. BMC public health 8: 232. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Organization WH (2004) Making pregnancy safer: the critical role of the skilled attendant: a joint statement by WHO, ICM and FIGO. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ononokpono DN, Odimegwu CO (2014) Determinants of maternal health care utilization in Nigeria: a multilevel approach. The Pan African Medical Journal 17. doi: 10.11694/pamj.supp.2014.17.1.3596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zerai A (1997) Preventive health strategies and infant survival in Zimbabwe. Africa Development/Afrique et Développement: 101–129. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Goldstein H, Browne W, Rasbash J (2002) Partitioning variation in multilevel models. Understanding statistics: statistical issues in psychology, education, and the social sciences 1: 223–231. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Osorio Mejía AM, Tovar Cuevas LM, Rathmann K (2015) Individual and local level factors and antenatal care use in Colombia: a multilevel analysis. Cadernos de Saúde Pública. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Babalola SO (2014) Factors associated with use of maternal health services in Haiti: a multilevel analysis. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública 36: 1–09. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Iqbal S, Maqsood S, Zakar R, Zakar MZ, Fischer F (2017) Continuum of care in maternal, newborn and child health in Pakistan: analysis of trends and determinants from 2006 to 2012. BMC health services research 17: 189. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2111-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gabrysch S, Campbell OMR (2009) Still too far to walk: Literature review of the determinants of delivery service use. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 9: 34. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yaya S, Bishwajit G, Ekholuenetale M, Shah V, Kadio B, Udenigwe O (2017) Timing and adequate attendance of antenatal care visits among women in Ethiopia. PloS one 12: e0184934. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mohan D, LeFevre AE, George A, Mpembeni R, Bazant E, Rusibamayila N, et al. (2017) Analysis of dropout across the continuum of maternal health care in Tanzania: findings from a cross-sectional household survey. Health policy and planning 32: 791–799. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czx005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Magadi MA, Madise NJ, Rodrigues RN (2000) Frequency and timing of antenatal care in Kenya: explaining the variations between women of different communities. Social science & medicine 51: 551–561. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00495-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tran TK, Nguyen CT, Nguyen HD, Eriksson B, Bondjers G, Gottvall K, et al. (2011) Urban-rural disparities in antenatal care utilization: a study of two cohorts of pregnant women in Vietnam. BMC health services research 11: 120. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Neupane S, Doku DT (2012) Determinants of time of start of prenatal care and number of prenatal care visits during pregnancy among Nepalese women. Journal of community health 37: 865–873. doi: 10.1007/s10900-011-9521-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sagna ML, Sunil T (2012) Effects of individual and neighborhood factors on maternal care in Cambodia. Health & place 18: 415–423. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wang W, Hong R (2015) Levels and determinants of continuum of care for maternal and newborn health in Cambodia-evidence from a population-based survey. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 15: 62. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0497-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Akinyemi JO, Afolabi RF, Awolude OA (2016) Patterns and determinants of dropout from maternity care continuum in Nigeria. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 16: 282. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-1083-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tamang TM Factors Associated with Completion of Continuum of Care for Maternal Health in Nepal.
  • 29.Kikuchi K, Yasuoka J, Nanishi K, Ahmed A, Nohara Y, Nishikitani M, et al. (2018) Postnatal care could be the key to improving the continuum of care in maternal and child health in Ratanakiri, Cambodia. PloS one 13: e0198829. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Shibanuma A, Yeji F, Okawa S, Mahama E, Kikuchi K, Narh C, et al. (2018) The coverage of continuum of care in maternal, newborn and child health: a cross-sectional study of woman-child pairs in Ghana. BMJ global health 3: e000786. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Singh K, Story WT, Moran AC (2016) Assessing the continuum of care pathway for maternal health in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Maternal and child health journal 20: 281–289. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1827-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000517.r001

Decision Letter 0

Zohra S Lassi

15 Feb 2022

PGPH-D-21-00920

Multilevel Analysis of Continuation of Maternal Healthcare Services Utilization and Its Associated Factors in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Chaka,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 01 2022 11:59PM. 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,

Zohra S. Lassi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please update the completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist".

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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: In the abstract: Check the use of acronyms please check conclusions in the abstracts as it is difficult to understand "targeting residence" ,as it is not clear from the results

In the introduction please clarify that in Ethiopia until the best of the knowledge CoC has not been studied

Material and Methods: Please state if the survey was conducted during 2016 and addressess women with live births five years earlier this means 2011-2016 ? Please define clearly the period. Also, it is not clear wether you used informetion that already existed in the survey or tracked eligible participants and obtained the information after 2016

A more in detail description of the survey and the information collected would be great to better understand what was done and how

Out come and Explanatory variables would benefit of a more graphical display (Table or graph )

Results: What is higher birth order? number of children? please clarify what you are refering !

Discussion: Better start with the study results

Check english for example: line 232 in page 11 ANC+ visits are higher (include the verb please!)

in line 232 and 233 instead of pregnancy wanted should be planned pregnancies right ?

Please describe better the comparison studies for example XXX et al found that in contrast our study found ....

Again describe birth order as previously said

The discussion should be enriched by the comments of the author on what is the meaning of all the correlations described and the fact that variable results are to be found among the different studies, for example: why the place of residence is not associated with CoC at a postpartum level whereas other variables might be this contributes to highlight the importance of CoC overall, maybe is because women that have CoC at post partum level are aware of the key relevance of this regardless of the place of residence (far away or near the health care facility???)

What are the strenghts of the study? Only limitations ?

Reviewer #2: The authors investigated the factors associated with the continuum of care (CoC) in Ethiopia. In general, the concept of the manuscript is of a great interest and the readership of the Journal may benefit from the presented facts and study results. However, this paper needs to improve in order to make the main message of the study clearer to the reader. The research method is poorly described. Some concerns for improvement of the paper are as follows:

Introduction

- The authors need to address why specifically this study is needed, as there remains a plethora of studies, particularly in the factors associated with the individual component of continuation of maternal health service utilization.

-Lines 74-75, the study objective is unclear. What do you mean by the level?

Materials and methods

- Please describe the study population more thoroughly. How many participants were reported in the DHS data, and how many were included in your study? The authors should describe how they reached the final sample size for their analysis. The authors may want to rethink the structure of the method section to help the readers to develop a good understanding of the study population.

- Please provide more details about stratified two-stage cluster sampling design of Ethiopian DHS 2016 and provide a reference for the study design. Provide more details about each stage, such as what are the sampling units, how many units are selected and out of how many, how are those units selected.

- Outcome variables: What is the basis of defining three components of CoC? Provide the references or the basis for the definition.

- Statistical analysis: It is not clear what you are referring to two-level multilevel logistic analysis. What are the different levels? The DHS has a complex survey design; however, your data analysis seems to ignore the survey design. Please provide more details about the statistical analysis.

Discussion

- In general, this section does not clearly present the authors’ conclusions and make some broad generalizations that are not based on the data presented. The author should discuss their findings, mainly why the factors associated with CoC are particularly important in Ethiopia.

- The authors should elaborate the study limitations.

Reviewer #3: 1. A thorough English Editing is required.

2. From Table 1 to 3 Sex of Household should b as Household dead

3. All tables Women Employee status should be correct as Women's Employment Status; most tables need to define p values in notes.

4. Authors have not used various interactions of independent variables e.g. mother education interact with wealth index.

5. Authors need to construct a conceptual framework and then provide enough reasoning for inclusion/exclusion of independent variables in the model.

6. I think multinomial logistic regression model is more appropriate to see ANC and then TBA effect.

7. It is not clear Whether skilled birth attendance (SBA) include Institutional Delivery i.e. took place at a medical Centre/hospital. If a very large proportion of births are institutional then SBA or TBA term is very misleading.

8. Discussion needs a great deal of work.

9. Also they need to elaborate what is the difference between continuation and continuum care.

Reviewer #4: Can be published without modifications. The paper investigates the level of continuity of maternal care and identify the

30 factors affecting the CoC in Ethiopia. It is a well written and well analyzed paper.

**********

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: Yes: Marianella Herrera-Cuenca

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dirga Kumar Lamichhane

Reviewer #3: Yes: Anil Gumber

Reviewer #4: 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.0000517.r003

Decision Letter 1

Zohra S Lassi, Julia Robinson

3 May 2022

Multilevel Analysis of Continuation of Maternal Healthcare Services Utilization and Its Associated Factors in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study

PGPH-D-21-00920R1

Dear Dr Chaka,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Multilevel Analysis of Continuation of Maternal Healthcare Services Utilization and Its Associated Factors in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study' 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,

Zohra S. Lassi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

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

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

5. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. 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: Please check in the discussion lines 306 to 309 because this is not clear and has many repeated words

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

7. 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: Yes: Marianella Herrera-Cuenca

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dirga Kumar Lamichhane

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .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