Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2022 Oct 5;2(10):e0000696. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000696

Time-to-recovery after cesarean section delivery among women who gave birth through cesarean section at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, South Ethiopia: A prospective cohort study

Anteneh Fikrie 1,2,*, Rahel Zeleke 2, Henok Bekele 2, Wongelawit Seyoum 2, Dejene Hailu 3, Zelalem Jabessa Wayessa 4, Girma Tufa 4, Takala Utura 1, Male Matie 5, Gebeyehu Dejene Oda 6
Editor: Julia Robinson7
PMCID: PMC10022236  PMID: 36962571

Abstract

Cesarean deliveries have become a major public health problem worldwide in recent decades. In addition, information on the quality of service, as measured by timely recovery is scarce. This study was assessed predictors of recovery time after cesarean section among women who delivered by cesarean section at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (HU-CSH) Southern Ethiopia. Institution-based prospective cohort study design was conducted among 381 study participants from July to August 2020. A consecutive sampling technique employed to select study participants. A pre-tested structured questionnaire was used to collect the data. The data were entered and analyzed by Epi info version 7 and SPSS respectively. Bivariable and multivariable Cox regression used to identify the predictors of time-to-recovery after cesearean section. Adjusted Hazard Ratio (AHR) with the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs)and p-value <0.5 was used to declare statistical significance. A total of 369 mothers who undergone cesearean section were followed for 1,042 person-days of observation. The timely recovery (within 4 days) was found to be 96.2% [95%CI: 94.04–98.4%] and the overall median (IQR) time of recovery was 2.00 (2, 3) days. The study revaled that the Incidence density rate (IDR) of timely recovery was found to be 0.34 per person-days or 2.38 per person-week. Whereas, the cumulative probability of not recovered on the 1st and 4th day was 0.995 and 0.038 respectively. This study found that women who had ANC follow-up (AHR = 1.49, 95%, CI: 1.05–2.10) and discharge from the wound site (AHR = 0.13, 95%, CI: 0.03–0.56) were identified as a significant positive and negative predictors of time-to-recovery after CS delivery respectively. The rate of early recovery obtained by this study was comparable to the global level figures. Still, the cleanness of the surgical site to prevent the incidence of postsurgical site CS delivery is very essential.

Introduction

Cesarean section(CS) is the most commonly performed surgical procedure worldwide that effectively prevents maternal and newborn mortality when used for medically indicated reasons [13]. However, there is a lack of evidence revealing its benefits for women who do not require the procedure [2]. Despite the progressively increased CS rates worldwide over the last decades; still, the trend has not been accompanied by significant maternal or perinatal benefits. Conversely, the existing evidence showed that higher rates of CS have been associated with increased maternal and perinatal morbidity [1].

For more than three decades the ideal rate for cesarean sections was estimated to be between 10% and 15% [2]. However, nearly 20% of births were delivered by CS universally of which the vast majority (more than 40%) was observed in Latin America and the Caribbean followed by Oceania and North America with a prevalence rate of 35%. In England, 27.8% of all pregnant women undergo CS to deliver their babies [4]. Likewise, in Ethiopia most recently a prevalence rate of 24.7% was reported [5]. Many factors had been implicated for the substantial rise of the CS rates [3] such as an increase in the prevalence of obesity, multiple pregnancies, an increase in the proportion of nulliparous women or older women, fear of pain, physician factors, increasing fear of medical litigation, as well as organizational, economic and social factors [1].

An increasing rise in the rate of CS delivery becomes a major public health concern. This is because CS delivery has associated with short- and long-term health consequences in comparison to vaginal delivery for women, babies and their households [3, 6]. According to a large study result in low and middle-income countries; one-fourth of women were died after giving birth through CS [3]. CS is associated with short-term risks such as; blood transfusion, the risks of anesthesia complications, organ injury, infection, and long-term risks that can extend many years beyond the current delivery and affect the health of the woman, the child, future pregnancies [1, 2, 7, 8].

Despite the rise in rates, cesarean delivery is the single most important factor associated with 5–20 folds increased postpartum infection than vaginal delivery [4, 9, 10]. Likewise, studies conducted in Ethiopia found that 11–15% of women who had given birth through CS developed surgical site infection which later leads to delayed recovery [10, 11]. Moreover, information on the quality of the service, as measured by timely recovery is scarce, particularly in the study area. Therefore, this study assessed time-to-recovery after cesarean section delivery and predictors among women who gave birth through cesarean section at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (HU-CSH), southern Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

The ethical Committee that approved this study was Institutional Review Board of Pharma College. The reference number was P/C/H/C/240/13. An additional official letter of corroborating was also obtained from the HUCSH Chief executive Office. All the participants were approached immediately to delivery by the data collectors and invited to participate in the study voluntarily and took informed verbal consent from each mother before data collection. The ethics committees had approved the verbal consent procedure. Code numbers was used in place of identifiers to maintain the confidentiality of participants’ information. Moreover, information regarding any specific personal identifiers like the name of the participants was not collected, and also the confidentiality of any personal information was also maintained. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant ethical guidelines and regulations.

Study design and settings

The institution-based prospective cohort study design was conducted from July to August 2020 at Hawassaa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (HU-CSH), Southern Ethiopia. The hospital is located in Hawassa city, the capital of Sidama regional state. It is one of the teachings and specialized and comprehensive hospitals in the Southern part of Ethiopia. It has over 400 beds. The average monthly CS deliveries are estimated to be 200. There are 72 midwives nurses and 7 senior Gynecologist doctors serving in the hospital.

Study population and sample size

The source population was all women who gave birth through CS in HU-CSH. In this study we used an internal comparisons group. So, we have categorized study participants in terms of their specific exposure status (ANC visit Yes/No, Hypertension Yes/No, Diabetes mellitus Yes/No, Previous history of CS Yes/No, Types skin incision Transverse/Vertical …etc….) and then compared the time-to-recovery after cesarean section delivery in exposed individuals and compared with their counter parts. The sample size was calculated based on the double population proportion formula by using Epi info version 7 [12] computer program considering the following assumptions: 95% CI, power 80%, the ratio of unexposed to exposed 1:1 and percent of outcome in exposed group 24.63% and percent of outcome in unexposed group 12.2% [11], a Risk ratio of 2 and 10% non-response rate. Finally, the calculated sample became 381. Finally, mothers who underwent cesarean section delivery at the study hospital were selected using consecutive sampling method.

Data collection procedure and data quality control

Three trained midwives from Labor and Obstetrics and Gynecology ward, and a Public Health Officer were participated in the data collection and supervision, respectively. Both the data collectors and supervisors were trained for two days on the procedures of data collection. A pretested structured questionnaire which was adapted by reviewing different peer-reviewed articles were used to collect the data [5, 13]. Data like socio-demographic characteristics (age, marital status, residences, BMI, educational status, religion, family income, number of children, source of referral), medical and obstetrics characteristics (ANC visits, number of ANC visits, HTN, DM, HIV/AIDs, anemia, blood transfusion, history of abortion and gestational age during CS), Pre, Intra and post-operative characteristics (Pervious history of CS, number of CS delivery, Types skin incision, breastfeeding, type of anesthesia used, presence of discharge from wound site, mobility after CS delivery), the date of CS procedure done and discharge date were obtained by the face-to-face interview, individual maternal records and referral notes review.

Data processing and analysis

The data were thoroughly cleaned, coded, and then entered into Epi info version 7 and exported to the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20 for analysis. Descriptive analysis was run to assess missing values and the presence of outliers. The dependent variable was time-to-recovery after CS delivery. The recovery time after CS delivery was dichotomized into early recovered or censored. Those who stayed ≤4 days after the CS delivery were taken as early recovered [14]; whereas the others were regarded as censored (late recovered) based on their length of stay. Length of stay (LOS) is the number of days the women stayed in the hospital from the date CS was done until the women develop an event of interest (early recovery) or censored (late recovery). Length of stay was computed using the difference between the date of discharge and the date of CS procedure done.

A multicollinearity test was carried out to see the correlation between the independent variables and no multicollinearity between independent variables was witnessed (Variance inflation factor <10). Data were described using frequency distribution and measures of central tendency and dispersion. Kaplan- Maier Curve and Long rank test was used to estimate cumulative survival probability and to compare survival status probability across different groups. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to adjust the potential cofounding variables and identify predictors of time-to-recovery. Variables with a p-value less than 0.25 during bivariablee analysis were considered as a candidate for multivariable analysis to check multicollinearity effects. The assumption of proportional hazard was graphically evaluated by the log-minus-log survival curve. Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to present the output of the analysis [15].

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of participants

From a total of 381 women delivered by CS, the data of 369 with a response rate of 96.8%. Almost all, 365 (98.9%) of women were married. The majority 307 (83.2%) of the women came from urban areas. The mean (SD) age of the participants was 27(3.5) years and the majority (90.2%), were less than the age of thirty years. The majority of women, 127 (34.4%) and 193 (52.3%) have college and above level of education and housewife in their occupation respectively. Nearly half, 176 (47.7%) of the participant’s family have a monthly income of 63.06–126.13$ range. More than three-fourths, 277(76.2%) of the women have the source of referral, and the majority, 205(74%) of them were referred from health centers (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the women on predictors of time-to-recovery from cesarean section delivery among women who gave birth by CS at HUCSH, 2020 (n = 369).

Variable Frequency Percent (%)
Age in years ≤20 22 6
21–25 99 26.8
26–30 212 57.5
≥31 36 9.8
Educational level No formal education 26 7
Primary education 94 25.5
Secondary education 122 31.1
College and above 127 34.4
Religion Orthodox 110 29.8
Protestant 186 50.4
Muslim 73 19.8
Residence Urban 307 83.2
Rural 62 16.8
Occupation of mother Housewife 193 52.3
Private employee 58 15.7
Governmental employee 79 21.4
Others@ 39 10.6
Family monthly income in USD 63.06$ 42 11.4
63.06–126.13$ 176 47.7
126.13–252.27$ 125 33.9
252.27$ 26 7
Number of children <2 259 70.2
2–3 80 21.7
≥4 30 8.1
Do you have source of referral Yes 277 76.2
No 92 23.8
The source of referral (n = 277) Health Centre 205 74
Hospital 72 26
BMI (kg/m2) Normal 264 71.5
Overweight 105 28.5

@ Merchant, student, unemployed (n = 369).

Medical and obstetrics characteristics of the women

The vast majority of participants, 328(88.9%) had at least one ANC visit. Accordingly, 31.1% and 57.7% of the women had 1–3 and ≥ Four ANC visits respectively. The mean (±SD) Gestational age (GA) during delivery was 37.9 (±1.72) weeks and 24.7% had GA of fewer than 37 weeks. Regarding chronic diseases; about 3.5%, 2.7%, and 1.9% of the women had hypertension, diabetes mellitus and HIV/AIDs respectively. Likewise, nearly one in five, 19.2% of women have been diagnosed with anemia and 1.6% of them received a blood transfusion (Table 2).

Table 2. Medical and obstetrics characteristics of the women on predictors of time-to-recovery from cesarean section delivery among women who gave birth by CS at HUCSH, 2020 (n = 369).

Variable Category Frequency Percent
ANC visit Yes 328 88.9
No 41 11.1
Number of visits (n = 328) No visits 41 11.1
1–3 times 115 31.2
≥Four times 213 57.7
Hypertension Yes 13 3.5
No 356 96.5
Diabetes mellitus Yes 10 2.7
No 359 97.3
HIV/AIDs Yes 7 1.9
No 362 98.1
Anemia Yes 71 19.2
No 298 80.8
Blood transfusion Yes 6 1.6
No 369 98.4
History of abortion Yes 51 13.8
No 318 86.2
Number of abortions (n = 51) One time 45 88.2
≥ two times 6 11.8
GA at during CS <37 weeks 91 24.7
37–40 weeks 251 68
>40 weeks 27 7.3

Pre, intra, and post-operative characteristics of the women

One-in-seven, (15.4%) of the women had a previous history of CS delivery; whereas the majority (84.4%) of them had one-time exposure including the current. The vast majority 94.6% of women have undergone transverse type skin incision. About 3% of the women experienced discharge from the wound site (Table 3).

Table 3. Pre, intra and post-operative characteristics of the women on predictors of time-to-recovery from cesarean section delivery among women who gave birth by CS at HUCSH, 2020 (n = 369).

Variables Category Frequency Percent (%)
Previous history of CS Yes 57 15.4
No 312 84.6
Number of CS done including the current One time 312 84.4
Two time 46 12.5
≥ Three time 11 3
Types skin incision Transverse 349 94.6
Vertical 20 5.4
Breastfeeding Yes 352 95.4
No 17 4.6
Type of anesthesia used General 23 6.2
Local 346 93.8
Discharge from the wound site Yes 11 3
No 358 97
Bad odour discharge Yes 9 2.4
No 360 97.8
Mobility after CS Yes 367 99.5
No 2 0.5
Indication for CS Maternal 185 50.1
Fetal 184 49.9

Time to recovery from cesarean section delivery

In this study, the proportion of timely recovery (within 4 days) is 96.2% [95%CI: 94.04–98.4%]. The overall median (IQR) time-to-recovery was 2.00 (2, 3) days. The overall incidence density rate (IDR) of timely recovery was calculated using person-days of follow-up as a denominator for the entire cohort. Thus, 369 study participants were followed for 1,042 person-days of observation. Henceforth, the IDR is 0.34 per person-days or 2.38 per person-week. Whereas, the cumulative probability of not recovered on the 1st and 4th day was 0.995 and 0.038 respectively. The overall mean survival time was 3.07(95%CI: 2.75–3.40) days (Table 4).

Table 4. Life table analysis of severely among women who gave birth by CS delivery at HUCSH, 2020.

Interval Start Time Number Entering Interval Number Withdrawing during Interval Number Exposed to Risk Number of Terminal Events Proportion Terminating Proportion Surviving Cumulative Proportion not recovered at End of Interval
0 369 0 369.000 0 .00 1.00 1.00
1 369 0 369.000 2 .01 .99 .99
2 367 0 367.000 214 .58 .42 .41
3 153 0 153.000 116 .76 .24 .10
4 37 0 37.000 23 .62 .38 .04
5 14 1 13.500 0 .00 1.00 .04
6 13 1 12.500 0 .00 1.00 .04
7 12 0 12.000 0 .00 1.00 .04
8 12 1 11.500 0 .00 1.00 .04
9 11 0 11.000 0 .00 1.00 .04
10 11 0 11.000 0 .00 1.00 .04
11 11 2 10.000 0 .00 1.00 .04
12 9 3 7.500 0 .00 1.00 .04
13 6 0 6.000 0 .00 1.00 .04
14 6 2 5.000 0 .00 1.00 .04
15 4 1 3.500 0 .00 1.00 .04
16 3 1 2.500 0 .00 1.00 .04
17 2 1 1.500 0 .00 1.00 .04
18 1 0 1.000 0 .00 1.00 .04
19 1 1 .500 0 .00 1.00 .04

Factors associated with an early recovery time of women delivered by CS

Multivariable Cox regression was carried out for variables verified as significant at p = value, < 0.25 during bivariate Cox regression. Accordingly, after adjusting for different variables ANC follow-up and discharge from the wound site were found to be independent predictors of recovery time in women delivered by CS at HU-CSH. Accordingly, women who had ANC follow-up were 1.5 times more likely to recover early as compared to their counterparts (AHR = 1.49, 95%, CI: 1.05–2.10). On the other hand, women who had discharge from the wound site had an 87% reduced chance of early recovery time than those women who did not have discharge from the wound site (AHR = 0.13, 95%, CI: 0.03–0.56) (Table 5).

Table 5. Output of bivariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses on factors associated with time-to-recovery after CS delivery among women who gave birth by CS delivery at HUCSH, 2020.

Variables Outcome CHR AHR
Early recovered N (%) Censored N (%) (95% CI) (95% CI)
Age in years
    ≤30 326(91.8) 7 (50) 1 1
    ≥31 29 (8.2) 7 (50) 0.67 (0.46–0.99) 0.90 (0.60–1.33)
Residence
    Rural 57 (16.1) 5(35.7) 0.97(0.73–1.29) -
    Urban 298(83.9) 9(64.3) 1 -
Occupation
    Employed 131 (39.9) 6 (42.9) 1
    Unemployed 224 (63.1) 8(57.1) 1.00(0.80–1.24)
Source of referral
    No 87 (24.5) 1(7.1) 1.13(0.89–1.44) 1.02(0.79–1.31)
    Yes 268 (73.6) 13 (92.9) 1 1
ANC visit
    Yes 317 (89.3) 3 (21.4) 1.78(1.26–2.51) 1.49(1.05–2.10)*
    No 38 (10.7) 11(78.6) 1 1
Prolonged labour
    Yes 105 (29.6) 2 (14.3) 1.08(0.86–1.36)
    No 250 (70.4) 12 (85.7) 1
Previous abortion
    Yes 49 (13.8) 2 (14.3) 1.03(0.76–1.39)
    No 306 (86.2) 12 (85.7) 1
Anemia
    Yes 67 (18.9) 4 (28.6) 0.85(0.65–1.11) 0.98(0.74–1.29)
    No 288 (81.1) 10 (71.4) 1 1
Gestational age at CS
    Term 245 (69) 2 (14.3) 1.24(0.99–1.56) 1.13(0.89–1.12)
    Pre & post term 110 (31) 12 (85.7) 1 1
Previous CS
    Yes 47(13.2) 10 (71.4) 0.71 (0.52–0.97) 0.87 (0.64–1.20)
    No 308 (86.8) 4 (28.6) 1 1
Discharge wound site
    Yes 2 (0.5) 9 (64) 0.09(0.024–0.38) 0.13(0.03–0.56)**
    No 353 (99.5) 5 (36) 1 1
Types skin incision
    Transvers 339 (95.5) 10 (71.4) 1.59(0.97–2.59) 1.55(0.58–4.09)
    Vertical 16 (4.5) 4 (28.6) 1 1
Type of anesthesia used
    General 15 (4.2) 8 (57.1) 0.49(0.30–0.81) 1.31(0.46–3.71)
    Local 340 (95.8) 6 (42.9) 1 1
Chronic disease
    Yes 42 (11.8) 12 (85.7) 0.70 (0.50–0;97) 0.92 (0.66–1.29)
    No 313 (88.2) 2 (14.3) 1 1
PROM
    Yes 4 (1.1) 5 (35.7) 0.29(0.11–0.79) 0.65(0.23–1.83)
    No 351 (98.9) 9(64.3) 1 1

** & * show statistically significant association at P < 0.01 and 0.05 respectively.

On the other hand, time-to-recovery patterns of the women delivered by CS across selected variables were compared using the Log-rank test. Hence, there were significantly different recovery rates among women with and without PROM. The mean recovery time with the presence and absence of PROM in women was 7.66 and 2.86 days respectively and their difference was statistically significant (Log-rank test = 18.659, P<0.001). Similarly, women who received general and spinal anesthesia (Log-rank test = 25.663, P<0.001) and women who had and had not discharge from the wound site (Log-rank test = 48.623, P<0.001) had a statistically significant difference in the recovery times (Table 6).

Table 6. Log rank (Mantel-Cox) test for association of explanatory variables with time-to-recovery after CS delivery among women who gave birth by CS delivery at HUCSH, 2020.

Variables Mean recovery time(95% CI) Overall comparison Log Rank
X 2 P-value
PROM
    Yes 7.66 (4.49–10.83) 18.659 <0.001
    No 2.86 (2.59–3.14)
Age
    ≤30 2.75 (2.52–2.98) 11.357 0.001
    ≥31 5.69 (3.55–7.83)
Discharge from the wound site
    Yes 15.90 (12.03–19.78) 48.623 <0.001
    No 2.62 (2.46–2.79)
Previous CS
    Yes 4.98 (3.53–6.42) 12.767 <0.001
    No 2.67 (2.44–2.88)
Gestational age at CS
    Term 2.55 (2.38–2.72) 10.15 0.001
    Pre & post-term 4.09 (3.21–4.97)
Chronic disease
    Yes 5.98 (4.12–7.84) 12.445 <0.001
    No 2.56 (2.42–2.71)
Type of skin incision
    Transverse 2.94 (2.61–3.21) 11.120 0.001
    Vertical 5.55 (3.01–8.06)
Type of anesthesia
    General 8.26 (5.05–11.47) 25.663 <0.001
    Local 2.66 (2.48–2.84)
ANC Visit
    Yes 2.56 (2.39–2.73) 32.139 <0.001
    No 6.30 (4.38–8.22)

Discussion

This study was conducted to assess the time-to-recovery after cesarean section delivery and predictors among women who gave birth through cesarean section at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (HU-CSH), southern Ethiopia. The finding of this study revealed that the overall proportion of timely recovery (within 4 days) after a maximum of 19 days is 96.2% with the median (IQR) time of recovery being 2.00 (2, 3) days.

The finding of this study is similar to the WHO-recommended average stay of 3–4 days in hospital after a CS delivery [14]. The result of this study is in line with other similar studies conducted in Ethiopia: Butajira and Attat hospitals [13]. However, the result is lower than a large population-based study conducted in North-Eastern Italy, where the recovery time was 4.7 days [16] and in India, the recovery time was 8.6 days [17]. The most likely reason for the similarity of the recovery rate might be due to the participant’s socio-demographic characteristics, and the health care providers who performed the CS. Moreover, the hospitals are serving as teaching institutions and lower rates of most comorbid conditions. Four years back a study conducted at the same hospital found that amongst the total mothers who underwent CS, 65(11.0%) developed surgical site infection [1]. However, in our study, only 11 (3%) of women were developed surgical site infections. This shows the progress of quality service delivery of the hospital.

On the other hand, our study found that the median (IQR) time of recovery time was 2.00 (2,3) days. This is corroborated by studies conducted outside Ethiopia, where the average of the women was discharged within 2 days [14, 18]. However, the finding of this study was inconsistent with other studies conducted in Ethiopia: Butajira and Attat hospitals where the mean recovery time was 3.27 [13] and a study conducted in 30 low and mid-income countries showed that the mean (±SD) hospitalization after the cesarean section was 5.9 (±3.4) days in the studied localities [19]. This implies that the study hospital has an improved, and quality of pre, intra, and post-operative services which help the women to recover early. Moreover, all the women who underwent CS at the study hospital were discharged alive; this indicates that the quality of the procedure was at an optimal level.

In this study, the mean time-to-recovery among women whose ages were ≤30 and ≥31 years was 2.75 and 5.69 days respectively (Log-rank test = 11.357, P = 0.001). The same finding was reported by different studies where younger women were discharged earlier [3, 11, 18, 19]. This might be because increased age has been associated with different comorbidities which affect the length of stay at the hospital. Similarly, women who had had and had not had chronic disease had a statistically significant difference in the recovery times (Log-rank test = 12.445, P<0.001). This result is supported by different studies; the hospital stay of women with complications and comorbidities was longer [1, 16, 18, 19]. This is due to the reason that women with complications and/or with co-morbidities need additional services for the management. So, this might prolong her length of stay at the hospital. Moreover, the study hospital is serving as a referral for the surrounding and adjacent woredas and zones of the Oromia region and Gedio Zones catchment populations. This could overestimate the number of complicated mothers.

Our study revealed that the women who had discharge from the wound site had 87% reduced recovery time than those women who did not have discharge from the wound site (AHR = 0.13, 95%, CI: 0.03–0.56). This finding is supported by studies conducted in Ethiopia [1, 11]. Another study conducted in England found that women undergoing CS are at higher risk of developing postnatal infection and this makes the recovery time longer [4]. Evidence suggested that the occurrence of surgical site infection is expected to increase as the incidence of CS increases [9]. The magnitude of wound infection (2.9%) found in this study hospital is comparable to the global guidelines for the prevention of surgical infection (2.9%) following cesarean section delivery [6]. This implies improvements in hygiene conditions, antibiotic prophylaxis, sterile procedures, and other practices in our study hospital. However, still, women undergoing a CS had better be equipped with pertinent information on how to keep the surgical site clean, post-operative recovery, and infection prevention advice.

Use of ANC designed to guide and support women on the mode of birth after a primary cesarean delivery is advantageous [20]. Accordingly, our study found that women who had ANC follow-up were 1.5 times more likely to recover early as compared to their counterparts (AHR = 1.49, 95%, CI: 1.05–2.10). This result is by supported another study that reported, ANC and correctly indicated CS can positively impact on health outcomes of the mother [21]. The possible reason might be because during ANC follow-up women with a previous cesarean birth, chronic diseases, and women with pregnancy-related complications could be identified and the decision for the mode of delivery could be agreed upon based on the woman’ preference.

This study has added weight to the existing literature by quantifying the time-to-recovery following cesarean section delivery; as a result it could be used as an input for policymakers and health program developers on maternal health services. Nevertheless, the findings from this study would be difficult to infer to the wider population, because the study was a hospital, HUCSH is a tertiary type of hospital which is serving as a teaching institution for different disciplines including specialties. So, this might positively affect the quality of the services given to the mothers unlike that of the general and primary hospitals where scare obstetrics and gynecologists are found. Moreover, the sample was relatively small; some of the variables, such as qualification of the person who performed the CS, type of health facility where the CS was performed as we have included the referral cases were not assessed.

Conclusions

The rate of early recovery and the median (IQR) time of recovery obtained by this study were comparable to the global level figures. The overall incidence density rate (IDR) of recovery in the cohort was 0.34 per Person-days or 2.38 per person-week. Women who had ANC follow-up and discharge from the wound site were identified as a positive and negative predictor of time-to-recovery after CS delivery respectively. The HUCSH Obstetrics and gynaecology department should stress on women undergoing CS want more information on what constitutes a ‘normal’ post-operative recovery and keeps the cleanness of the surgical site to prevent the incidence of postsurgical site infection which is the major predictor for time-to-recovery after CS delivery.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital and Pharma College Hawassa Campus for permitting us to undertake this study. Our thanks also go to our study participants, data collectors, supervisors, and those who were actively participated in our study.

List of abbreviations and acronyms

ACOG

American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists

AHR

Adjusted Hazard Ratio

BMI

Body Mass Index

CDs

Cesarean Delivery

CI

Confidence Intervals

CHR

Crude Hazard Ratio

CS

Cesarean Section

HIV

Human Immune Deficiency Virus

HUCSH

Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital

IQR

Inter Quartile Range

PROM

Pre-mature Rapture of Membrane

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Science

SSI

Surgical Site Infection

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

Data essential for the conclusion are included in this manuscript.

Funding Statement

Pharma College has funded the research to AF. The funder had no part in study design, information gathering, and analysis, judgment to publish, or development of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO recommendations non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1156517/retrieve [PubMed]
  • 2.WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Avenue Appia 20, CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland: World Health Organization 2015. Available at https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/161442/WHO_RHR_15.02_eng.pdf
  • 3.Deaths from caesarean sections 100 times higher in developing countries: global study Outcomes for women “far worse” than expected: World Health Organization (WHO); 2019 [cited 2021 March 20]. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/death-from-caesarean-sections/en/.
  • 4.Weckesser A, Farmer N, Dam R, Wilson A, Morton VH, Morris RK. Women’s perspectives on caesarean section recovery, infection and the PREPS trial: a qualitative pilot study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2019;19(245). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Halil HM, Abdo RA, Helill SE, Kedir RD. Predictors of Cesarean Section among Women Delivered at Durame General Hospital, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Women’s Health Care. 2020;9(482). [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection, second edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Patel S, Kansara V, Patel R, Anand N. Obstetric and perinatal outcome in previous one cesarean section. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol wwwijrcogorg. 2016;5(9):3141–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Begum T, Rahman A, Nababan H, Hoque DME, Khan A, Ali T, et al. Indications and determinants of caesarean section delivery: Evidence from a population- based study in Matlab, Bangladesh. PLoS ONE 2017;12(11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zuarez-Easton S, Zafran N, Garmi G, Salim R. Postcesarean wound infection: prevalence, impact, prevention, and management challenges. International Journal of Women’s Health. 2017;9:81–8. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S98876 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wodajo S, Belayneh M, Gebremedhin S. Magnitude and Factors Associated With Post-Cesarean Surgical Site Infection at Hawassa University Teaching and Referral Hospital, Southern Ethiopia: A Cross-sectional Study. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences May 2017;27(3). doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v27i3.10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lijaemiro H, Lemlem SB, Deressa JT. Incidence of Surgical Site Infection and Factors Associated among Cesarean Deliveries in Selected Government Hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2019. Hindawi Obstetrics and Gynecology International. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ern LY, Vui LT, Ramesh S, Rajan K, Arangala TA. Risk Perception and Willingness to Perform Basic Life Support Following the 2019 Coronavirus Pandemic. International Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences. 2020;5 (3):187–202. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lamada KL, Adal TG, Tesfay TG, Abdrezak AY, editors. Time to recovery after cesarean section delivery and its predictors in Butajira and Attat hospitals, south Ethiopia: a prospective cohort study Impacts of Climate Change on Public Health: Ethiopia’s Challenge in the 21st Century; 2019 February 25–27 Adama: Ethiopian Public Health Association (EPHA). [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Federspiel Jerome J., Suresh Sunitha C., Szymanski LM. Hospitalization Duration Following Uncomplicated Cesarean Delivery: Predictors, Facility Variation, and Outcomes. AJP Rep Apr, 2020. 10(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fikrie A, Alemayehu A, Gebremedhin S. Treatment outcomes and factors affecting time-to-recovery from severe acute malnutrition in 6–59 months old children admitted to a stabilization center in Southern Ethiopia: A retrospective cohort study. Italian Journal of Pediatrics. 2019;45(46):2–9. doi: 10.1186/s13052-019-0642-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cegolon L, Mastrangelo G, Campbell OM, Giangreco M, Alberico S, Montasta L, et al. Length of stay following cesarean sections: A population based study in the Friuli Venezia Giulia region (North-Eastern Italy), 2005–2015. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kumar P, Dhillon P. Length of stay after childbirth in India: a comparative study of public and private health institutions. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2020;20(181). doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-2839-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.PereiraI SL, Novaes TG, Couto RC, SilvaII TPRd, PessoaV MC, Pedrosa TMG, et al. Factors associated with the length of hospital stay of women undergoing cesarean section. Rev Saude Publica. 2019;53(65). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Campbell OMR, Cegolon L, Macleod D, Benova L. Length of Stay After Childbirth in 92 Countries and Associated Factors in 30 Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Compilation of Reported Data and a Cross-sectional Analysis from Nationally Representative Surveys. PLoS Med 2015;13(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Gupta J, Smith G, Chodankar MR. Birth After Previous Caesarean Birth. Green-top Guideline No. 45. second edition ed: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; October 2015. p. 31.
  • 21.Barros AJ, Victora CG, Horta BL, CWehrmeister F, Bassani D, Silveira MnF, et al. Antenatal care and caesarean sections: trends and inequalities in four population-based birth cohorts in Pelotas, Brazil, 1982–2015. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2019;48(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000696.r001

Decision Letter 0

Charles Anawo Ameh

9 Mar 2022

PGPH-D-21-00438

Time-to-recovery after cesarean section delivery among women who gave birth through cesarean section at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, south Ethiopia: A prospective cohort study

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Fikrie,

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 23 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,

Charles Anawo Ameh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. In the Methods, please clarify that participants provided oral consent. Please also state in the Methods:

- Why written consent could not be obtained

- Whether the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved use of oral consent

- How oral consent was documented

For more information, please see our guidelines for human subjects research: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

2. In the Funding Information you indicated that no funding was received. Please revise the Funding Information field to reflect funding received.

Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form.

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

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors, thanks for submitting a very interesting article, however before I can make a final decision on it, there are several minor corrections to be made and I recommend a detailed proof read including grammar check before resubmitting. Thanks

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: No

Reviewer #2: 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: No

**********

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: This is an interesting study of length of stay post-cesarean section (CS) in a relatively large university hospital in Ethiopia. They describe the overall LoS and seek to find factors associated with short LoS.

Isues:

1. Although indeed this is a prospective study with a cohort of women, this is not a cohort study because there is no clear exposure defined. The outcome is the LoS in days from CS to discharge from the health facility. There is no censoring here. Yes, it could be some administrative censoring on day 4 for those who have LoS beyond that. That is OK. But when you are describing the length of stay do not censor. The cumulative proportion of discharge at day 4 is still the same 96.2% (95%CI: 93.7 to 97.7%). And now the mean has sense to be estimated [with censoring the mean requires some assumptions to be meaningful].

It is OK to proceed with administrative censoring on day 4 for the Cox regression.

2. Why the Kolmogorov Smirnov test for normality. We do not need this.

3. On the results and discussion, it would be better to remove the “±” on the SD.

4. Table 5:

- the “abortion” variable sounds to be “previous abortion” correct?

- Why age was dichotomized? And please use as reference the category with more observations

5. Table 6:

- How the means were computed? Does the method used here account for censoring?

- It seems that these are unadjusted mean recovery times. I imagine computing the adjusted ones but state that these are unadjusted.

- Please do not use chi-squared as a measure of association. Please something as time-ratios or mean-differences with its 95% confidence intervals, please.

6. There are English issues.

- For example, the 3rd paragraph of the background somewhere at the “one-forth of women were died… ”

- Another example… In the paragraph of “data collection procedure and data quality control”

- there are abbreviations that never a full spelled such HTN, DM etc

Reviewer #2: Gross grammatical errors noted. This would have been resolved with a grammar checking app before submission. Revisions attached.

Gross grammatical errors noted. This would have been resolved with a grammar checking app before submission. Revisions attached.

**********

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: Orvalho Augusto

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.0000696.r003

Decision Letter 1

Lucinda Shen

22 Jun 2022

PGPH-D-21-00438R1

Time-to-recovery after cesarean section delivery among women who gave birth through cesarean section at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, south Ethiopia: A prospective cohort study

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Fikrie,

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.

The reviewers had some minor suggestions to the revised mansucript which requires attention, in particular they have concerns that some of their previous comments were not addressed.

Furthermore the reviewer has highlighted some confusing and potentially unclear labelling of table columns. To avoid confusion we suggest paying close attention to the reviewers comments and revise accordingly.

Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 05 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,

Lucinda Shen, MSc

Staff Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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. 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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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: 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: The authors did address some of my previous comments.

1. In the response letter, the authors state that they removed the Kolmogorov Smirnov test for normality. They did not. It is very clear in the 3rd line of the “data processing and analysis”.

2. Please make sure it is written Epi Info (not EPINFO), and please add a citation. Did you use indeed two different versions (in the population size version 7; and the analysis some another version).

3. In the “time to recovery from cesarean section delivery” subsection, in the last 3 lines. It is written, “Whereas, the cumulative probability of early recovery at the 1st and 4th day was 0.995 and 0.038 respectively.” This is mistaken. I believe the confusion starts from the unclear labelling of the columns in table 4. The last column “cumulative proportion surviving at end of interval”, although in the survival analysis language is indeed survival, to avoid confusion I suggest to call it “cumulative proportion of not recovered”. Remember, in this analysis your outcome is positive (whereas in a typical survival analysis it is a negative outcome, and we would show a cumulative survival). If the authors want to report the “cumulative proportion of recovered” do the complementary:

1 - 1, 1 - 0.99, 1 - 0.41, 1 - 0.10, 1 - 0.04 … ie 0, 0.01, 0.59, 0.90, 0.96. So by first day 1% revered, whereas by 4th day 96% recovered.

4. The first 2 citations are reports. Right? Please make sure they are correctly written.

5. In the background the first line of the 3rd paragraph please clarify why the increasing rate of CS delivery becomes a major public health concern.

**********

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: Orvalho Augusto

**********

[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.0000696.r005

Decision Letter 2

Julia Robinson

15 Sep 2022

Time-to-recovery after cesarean section delivery among women who gave birth through cesarean section at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, South Ethiopia: A prospective cohort study

PGPH-D-21-00438R2

Dear Mr. Fikrie,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Time-to-recovery after cesarean section delivery among women who gave birth through cesarean section at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, South Ethiopia: A prospective cohort 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,

Julia Robinson

Executive 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

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 1. Responses to the reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 3. Responses to the reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data essential for the conclusion are included in this manuscript.


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

    RESOURCES