Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Mar 31;18(3):e0283833. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283833

Scoping review of qualitative studies investigating reproductive health knowledge, attitudes, and practices among men and women across Rwanda

Julie M Buser 1,*, Ella August 2, Gurpreet K Rana 3, Rachel Gray 4, Olive Tengera 5, Faelan E Jacobson-Davies 6, Madeleine Mukeshimana 7, Diomede Ntasumbumuyange 8, Gerard Kaberuka 9, Marie Laetitia Ishimwe Bazakare 10, Tamrat Endale 11, Yolanda R Smith 12
Editor: Ashfikur Rahman13
PMCID: PMC10065244  PMID: 37000835

Abstract

Background

Research efforts in Rwanda to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are increasing; however, comprehensive literature reviews on SRHR are limited. This scoping review examines individual and contextual factors shaping knowledge, attitudes, and practices in the domains of: 1) family planning, 2) abortion care, and 3) other SRHR in Rwanda. Recognizing that individual, community, and societal factors influence RH, this review is guided by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory.

Methods

Eligible studies were conducted in Rwanda, included males and/or females of any age, and were published within the past 20 years. Studies reporting views of only healthcare or other professionals were excluded.

Results

Thirty-six studies were included. The majority addressed individual and contextual considerations. At the individual level, studies explored knowledge about SRHR problems while at the interpersonal level, the support and attitudes of men and community members for adolescent SRHR were investigated. In terms of healthcare organization, maternal health practices, increased access to family planning programs, and the need for sexually transmitted infection programs was explored. At the social and cultural level, researchers investigated beliefs and traditional gender roles. Regarding public health policy, studies mentioned promoting and increasing funding for SRHR and reducing gender inequities.

Conclusion

Our findings can inform SRHR research programs, public health campaigns, and policy advances in Rwanda.

Introduction

A synthesis of the qualitative evidence regarding the reproductive health of Rwandans is critical when considering research investments, school programs, and policy. Rwanda is Africa’s most densely populated country with a high fertility rate of 4.2 children per woman and a high maternal mortality of 210/100,000 births [1]. Globally, family planning (FP) reduces maternal mortality by decreasing both total and higher-risk pregnancies [2]. Rwanda has made measurable success in bringing FP information and accessibility to its citizens [3] and is striving to achieve the highest attainable standard of health for everyone [4]. Rwanda is committed to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2035 and declared FP and adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) a national priority [5].

To achieve these goals, it is important to investigate factors shaping SRH in Rwanda. For the purpose of this scoping review, we operationalized SRH to include a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being relating to the reproductive system, including sexuality education, FP, preconception care, antenatal and safe delivery care, postnatal care, STI/HIV prevention services, and preventive screening, early diagnosis and treatment of RH illnesses and cancers [6]. Improving SRH is crucial to eliminating health disparities, reducing rates of infectious diseases and infertility, and increasing educational attainment, career opportunities, and financial stability [7]. A clear understanding of SRH factors within one’s own context is critical to advancing society.

While research efforts to understand knowledge, attitudes, and practice of SRH among Rwandans are increasing, comprehensive scientific literature reviews on these topics are limited and there remains a gap in knowledge. The aim of this qualitative scoping review is to examine individual and contextual factors shaping knowledge, attitudes, and practices in the domains of: 1) family planning, 2) abortion care, and 3) other sexual and reproductive health and rights in Rwanda. Recognizing that individual, community, and societal factors influence SRH, this review is guided by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (EST) [8–11]. Within the EST, an individual is considered an integrated system in which psychological processes—cognitive, affective, emotional, motivational, and social—operate in coordinated interaction with one another [12]. We captured qualitative data to characterize how an individual’s knowledge, attitudes, and practices reflect individual, community, and societal orientations related to SRH. The results from this qualitative scoping review can be used to inform future reproductive health research programs and the development of evidence-based guidelines and policy in Rwanda.

Materials and methods

Our methodology was based on stages of the scoping review framework adopted by Arksey and O’Malley [13] to: (1) identify the research question; (2) identify relevant studies; (3) select studies; (4) chart the data; and (5) collate, summarize, and report the results. To assess study quality of the included literature, we followed the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP) checklists [14].

Search strategy

A search of the literature was conducted by a health sciences informationist (GKR) in March 2022. The eight databases searched were MEDLINE (via Ovid interface), EMBASE (via Embase.com), Scopus, CINAHL (via EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (via Thomson Reuters), Global Health (via CABI), PsycINFO (via EBSCOhost) and Women’s Studies International (via EBSCOhost).

Final search strategies were determined through test searching and use of search syntax to enhance search retrieval. The search strategies implemented in all eight databases can be accessed at https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/175847. In seven of the databases, the search was limited to articles published from 2002 to 2022. In the Global Health database, due to the available search parameters in the CABI interface, the search strategy was limited to articles published from 2001 to 2021. We limited the timeframe to the past twenty years to identify themes in the current research literature while allowing time for the reinitiation of research activities after the Rwandan genocide.

A total of 948 citations were exported to EndNote for processing and removal of duplicate citations. There were 379 unique citations exported to Rayyan [17] for assessment and initial screening. Rayyan is a free web-based tool designed for researchers working on evidence synthesis projects, including scoping reviews and systematic reviews.

Study selection

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were original research publications conducted in Rwanda with Rwandan male and female citizens of any age. We only included studies with data from multiple countries if Rwanda-specific data were reported separately. Articles in any language that were conducted within the last 20 years were included. Any study designs that used qualitative data in peer-reviewed publications were included. Studies reporting views limited to only health care or other professionals were excluded as were those using only quantitative data; other publication types (dissertation, abstract, commentary, editorial, protocol papers); other focus areas (not in the domains of FP/CAC/SRHR); other study duration (published more than 20 years ago); and those conducted outside Rwanda. Articles were also identified via hand searching of reference lists of included studies (conducted by JMB, EA, OT, FGD, RG, GK, LI, TE, and YS).

Screening process

Using Rayyan, title and abstract screening was performed by two independent researchers who were blinded to one another’s assessments (JMB, EA, FJD, RG, TE, and YS). A third reviewer resolved discrepancies (JMB, EA, FJD, RG, TE, and YS). A similar process was used to review the full-text articles (JMB, EA, OT, FGD, RG, GK, LI, TE, and YS). Hand searching of reference lists was performed (JMB, EA, OT, FGD, RG, GK, LI, TE, and YS). The reviewing team communicated throughout the abstract and full-text screening processes to address any questions about study selection.

Data collection

A data extraction form was used to collect author names, article title and year, participant characteristics (gender, age, etc.), study aims, sample size, findings, and implications (JMB, OT, FJD, RG, GK, LI). Researchers also used the data extraction form to identify the study domain (i.e., FP, SRHR, CAC) and EST level (i.e., individual, interpersonal, healthcare organization, social & cultural, and/or public health policy).

Results

Fig 1 displays the PRISMA flow diagram, generated using a web-based tool created by Haddaway et al. [18]. A total of 36 studies were included in our final sample. Three of these articles were found through hand searching reference lists. S1 Appendix includes the citation counts for search strategies implemented on 3/3/2022. S2 Appendix shows the completed data extraction form filled in by our study authors. Regarding data collection type, in 15 studies, researchers conducted individual interviews while focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in 11 studies. Study domains of the articles in our sample are displayed in Fig 2 with SRHR the topic most frequently studied. Most studies included a sample size of less than 50 participants (Fig 2). The largest number of studies in our sample focused on the individual EST level (Fig 2) but often included discussion of multiple levels.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram of articles screened for scoping review of qualitative studies of reproductive health across Rwanda, 2001–2021.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Fig 2. Ecological systems theory study categories.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Summary of sample study aims

In terms of study aims, several articles focused on the effectiveness and effects of different interventions: use of standard days method of FP based on a woman’s menstrual cycle [19], engaging fathers in caregiving [20], implementation of coordinated public planning service delivery [21], group antenatal care [22], and an entertainment-education serial radio drama [23]. Three studies focused on understanding adolescents’ perspectives or experiences of SRH social norms, specifically with: sexual coercion [24], adolescent pregnancy [25], and sexuality and relationships [26]. Additionally, Coast et. al. [27] evaluated the relationship between adolescents’ age and their perceptions and experiences with SRH. While Doyle et al. [20], Tuyisenge et al. [28], Påfs, Musafili, et al. [29], and Ndirima et al. [30] focused on women’s perceptions of the quality or accessibility of care; Stern & Heise [31] and Mumporeze et al. [32] investigated sexual power dynamics of “sexploitation” and sexual coercion, respectively.

Six studies focused on specific barriers to: modern contraception use [33], birth preparedness [34], antenatal care [35], positive client-provider relationships [36], collaborative couple contraception use [37], and on access and provision of maternal health services [28]. Tolley et al. [38] and Kestelyn et al. [39] explored the acceptability of different contraception types (long term injectable and vaginal ring, respectively) to sexually active HIV negative women between 18 and 35 years old. Adedimeji et. al. [40], Coast et al. [27], Doyle et al. [41] and Stern et al. [42] focused specifically on the effect of social and gender norms on individuals’ health.

Summary of included study implications framed by the ecological systems theory

The included studies addressed various implications in the domains of FP/CAC/SRHR in Rwanda that can be delineated within socio-ecological levels.

Individual (Microsystem) and interpersonal (Mesosystem)

Four articles discussed implications related to the role men play in maternal health [20, 37, 43, 44, 51]. These themes included the need to include men in discussions of FP and contraception and keeping them engaged in pregnancy discussions. Doyle and colleagues [20], maintain that gender-transformative programs, which engage men in deliberate questioning of gender norms, can increase men’s involvement in ways that shift the burden of care work and address unequal power relations. Schwandt et al. [37] suggest that further increasing male involvement in contraceptive use via gender transformative approaches would be beneficial for Rwandan FP providers, men, and women. Meanwhile, in a study by Påfs, men saw an engaged and caring partner as the ideal yet faced challenges due to normative gendered expectations in Rwandan society [43].

To reduce barriers to modern contraceptive use for women in Rwanda, Brunie et al. [33] recommended increasing efforts to convey information aimed at men, developing effective messages about postpartum risk of pregnancy and training providers on postpartum contraceptive eligibility and needs, and reinforcing use of alternative pregnancy-screening methods. Mothers in the study by Musabyimana et al. [22] reported that group antenatal and postnatal care provides compelling benefits to women and families, but highlighted that additional resources (intensive reminder communications, human resources at the health center, and large-scale community outreach) must be factored into any future decision to scale a group care model. Ingabire et al. [45] highlighted the need to focus programs assisting women to leave sex work towards vulnerable house-girls and the need to include financial safety nets so that a time of financial difficulty does not necessitate a return to sex work.

Healthcare organization (Exosystem)

Seven articles articulated the need to increase access to and use of contraception and FP programs [36, 38, 39, 46–49]. Kestelyn et al. [39] and Farmer et al. [46] discussed the relationship between broader acceptance of FP by the society and the adoption of the methods by the population. Researchers maintain that as Rwanda continues to refine its FP policies and programs, it will be critical to address community perceptions around fertility and desired family size, health worker shortages, and stock-outs, as well as to engage men and boys, improve training and mentorship of health workers to provide quality services, and clarify and enforce national policies about payment for services at the local level [46]. Schwandt et al. [47] and Tolley et al. [38] discussed the role providers can play in disseminating accurate information about FP methods which will correct misconceptions and increase their use. Veldhuijzen et al. [49] found that condom use is low among Rwandan men and women and that condoms are mainly used by men during commercial sex, however, after discussing the use of microbicides, the study participants gained a better understanding of this contraception type and were more likely to use it.

Seven articles centered on the need for Rwanda’s health system to support maternal health through providers ensuring that women feel respected, safe and able to advocate for themselves [29, 30, 34, 50] and in terms of policies, to be sure there are ways for women to receive the health care they need [43, 44, 51]. Ndirima and colleagues [30] imply that women’s expectations, suggestions, and needs can enhance providers’ awareness of the women’s priorities during childbirth and serve as a guidepost for health services to increase the quality, acceptability and uptake of maternal health services. Kalisa et al. [34] suggest there is a need for addressing inconsistent health policies hindering the intention to access professional care in Rwanda. According to Tuyisenge [43], interventions involving men are encouraged to increase their understanding of the implications of their involvement in maternal health without compromising women’s autonomy in decision-making and to promote positive maternal health outcomes.

Four articles discussed adolescent SRH [24–27]. Coast et al. [27] and Michielsen et al. [26] spoke about young people being particularly at risk for adverse SRH outcomes, including HIV/STI infection or unwanted pregnancies, due to the societal context in which they engage in sexual relations. Van Decraen et al. [24] and Coast et al. [25] discussed the need to improve education and access to the health sector to protect adolescents from adverse outcomes associated with sexual coercion and teen pregnancy. Researchers maintain that concerted and multisectoral efforts—across education, justice and health—are critical to prevent sexual violence and unwanted adolescent pregnancy [25]. It is important to support adolescent mothers in hopes of reducing the likelihood that adolescent mothers and their children are left behind while preventing the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage [25].

Social and cultural (Macrosystem) and public health policy (Chronosystem)

Six articles described gender roles and possible ways to decrease gender inequalities by linking policy and societal norms [31, 32, 41, 42, 45, 52]. Mumporeze et al. [32] and Kubai & Ahlberg [52] discussed that Rwanda’s legal system does not adequately protect women, despite the current gender equity policies. Policy shifts must be paralleled by shifts in the cultural expectation of gender roles. Doyle [41] suggests there is a need for capacity building efforts to challenge health providers’ inequitable gender attitudes and practices and equip them to be aware of gender and power dynamics between themselves and their clients.

Two articles outlined Rwandan society’s view of fertility [23, 53]. Shelus et al. [23] specifically discussed the need to convey fertility messages clearly and frequently, focusing on those central to the desired behavior change and monitor the frequency of these messages. As accurate information about fertility may contradict widespread cultural beliefs, listeners may not initially be receptive to the new information, such as postpartum pregnancy risk. Dohnt et al. [53] found that couples without children contribute to society by acting as caregivers, but infertility causes severe suffering and there is an urgent need to recognize infertility as a serious reproductive health problem and to put infertility care on the public health agenda.

Two articles evaluated sexually transmitted infections and ways to decrease their appearance in society [40, 54]. Adedimeji et al. [40] discussed the need for interventions to increase access to care that decrease both individual and societal determinants of risks and access to health services to limit the consequence of men having sex with men as a bridge for HIV transmission to the general population. An environment of intense social stigma and social isolation in Rwanda makes it difficult to obtain information or services to improve sexual health [40]. Veldhuijzen et al. [54] also discussed the benefit of STI programs that target individuals showing symptoms. They articulated that the reach of an STI control program could be increased by removing barriers to accessibility of care and increasing utilization of care by symptomatic patients.

Synthesis of included studies

By framing implications of studies included in the review using the EST, we have situated their findings at various socio-ecological levels: individual attitudes, interpersonal relationships, healthcare organization, cultural and social factors, and public policy. Fig 3 shows the EST model inspired by Berger [55], Buser et. al. [56] and Stanger [57], adapted for this qualitative scoping review, incorporating the factors affecting RH in Rwanda and their relevance. The majority of studies in our sample addressed individual and contextual considerations at several EST levels.

Fig 3. Our adaptation of the ecological systems theory to characterize reproductive health in Rwanda.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Discussion

Summary of major findings

We conducted this qualitative scoping review to examine individual and contextual factors shaping the knowledge, attitudes, and practices in FP/CAC/SRHR in Rwanda. Included studies offered important implications at various EST levels. At the individual level, studies explored individual knowledge about SRH problems. Meanwhile, at the interpersonal level, male and community support and attitudes of SRH were investigated along with adolescent SRH. In terms of healthcare organization, maternal health practices, increased access to FP programs, and the need for expanded STI programs were explored in several studies. At the social and cultural level, researchers investigated cultural beliefs and traditional gender roles relating to SRH. Regarding public health policy, studies advocated promoting and increasing funding for SRH resources and affording better legal protection for women to reduce gender inequities.

Similar to findings in our review, researchers performing a scoping review on sexual and reproductive health behaviors among Tanzanian adolescents found the available published information shows that adolescents engage in high-risk sexual behaviors and experience adverse consequences [58]. Consistent with our review of studies in Rwanda, a mixed method scoping review by Wulifan and colleagues [59] demonstrated a noticeable gap regarding awareness and uptake of contraception leading to high unmet need for FP across LMICs. Also in line with our findings, a systematic review by Ivanova et al. [60] exploring knowledge, experiences, and access to SRH services in adolescent girls and young women across the African continent affected by conflict and disaster showed this population group often experiences gender-based and sexual violence and abuse with limited access and availability of SRH services.

Strengths and limitations of this qualitative scoping review

To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative scoping review of SRH knowledge, attitudes, and practice in Rwanda. A strength of this review is the high number of databases searched allowing us to provide an overview of the qualitative scientific literature pertaining to SRH in Rwanda. Another strength is that diverse types of settings were captured within Rwanda, including rural and urban areas, as well as coverage of men and women of all ages. While several databases were searched, with an ever-expanding knowledge environment, studies indexed in diverse sources, and unpublished data, it is possible that all relevant studies were not identified. Another potential limitation is that findings might not be generalizable to other areas in sub-Saharan Africa given the specific focus on Rwanda.

Conclusions

This qualitative scoping review of SRH in Rwanda provided an overview of the published scientific literature. The included studies provided implications and important next steps for future research. In terms of policy changes, for Rwanda to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2035, it is important to advocate at the national level for the prevention and treatment of violence against women, improved access to FP/SRH services, and expanded STI programs. Additional public health policy changes are needed to provide affordable legal protection to reduce gender inequities. We hope that the summarized findings of this scoping review will be used to inform future SRH research programs, public health campaigns, and policy advances in Rwanda.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Search citation counts.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (16.1KB, docx)
S2 Appendix. Data extraction form.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (100.2KB, xlsx)

Abbreviations

CAC

Comprehensive abortion care

EST

Ecological Systems Theory

FDGs

Focus group discussions

FP

Family planning

SRH

Sexual and reproductive health

SRHR

Sexual and reproductive health and rights

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This study was financially supported by Center for International Reproductive Health Training, University of Michigan in the form of a grant awarded to TE. No additional external funding was received for this study. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.USAID. Rwanda: global health. 2022. https://www.usaid.gov/rwanda/global-health. Accessed 21 Oct 2022.
  • 2.Utomo B, Sucahya PK, Romadlona NA, Robertson AS, Aryanty RI, Magnani RJ. The impact of family planning on maternal mortality in Indonesia: what future contribution can be expected? Population Health Metrics. 2021. Dec;19(1):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schwandt HM, Feinberg S, Akotiah A, Douville TY, Gardner EV, Imbabazi C, et al. “Family planning in Rwanda is not seen as population control, but rather as a way to empower the people”: examining Rwanda’s success in family planning from the perspective of public and private stakeholders. Contraception and Reproductive Medicine. 2018. Dec;3(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s40834-018-0072-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.FP 2030. At a glance: Rwanda. 2021. https://fp2030.org/rwanda/. Accessed 21 Oct 2022.
  • 5.Republic of Rwanda Ministry of Health. National Family Planning and Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health (FP/ASRH) Strategic Plan (2018–2024). 2018. https://fp2030.org/sites/default/files/Rwanda%20FP-ASRH_Strategic%20Plan%202018%20-2014%20final.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2022.
  • 6.UNFPA. Sexual & reproductive health. 2022 https://www.unfpa.org/sexual-reproductive-health. Accessed 21 Oct 2022.
  • 7.ODPHP. Reproductive and Sexual Health. 2022. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/leading-health-indicators/2020-lhi-topics/Reproductive-and-Sexual-Health#:~:text=Improving%20reproductive%20and%20sexual%20health,career%20opportunities%2C%20and%20financial%20stability. Accessed 21 Oct 2022.
  • 8.Bronfenbrenner U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist. 1977;32(7):513. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bronfenbrenner U. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press; 1979 [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development. 1989;6:187–249. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological models of human development. International Encyclopedia of Education. 1994;3(2):37–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bronfenbrenner U. The Ecology of Cognitive. College Student Development and Academic Life: Psychological, Intellectual, Social, and Moral Issues. 1997;4:295. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology. 2005. Feb 1;8(1):19–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.CASP, 2018. CASP Qualitative Studies Checklist. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/. Accessed 9 Feb 2023.
  • 15.Slater, Linda G. A Comprehensive Filter to Retrieve Qualitative Studies from the OVID MEDLINE Database (based on McKibbon, Eady and Marks (1999) and Evans (2002). John W. Scott Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 2017. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KdReD-h5NL5pX3vdEsOLxK2VtAsRe8ZM_uzZPWcitQ/edit. Accessed 21 Oct 2022.
  • 16.El Sherif R, Pluye P, Gore G, Granikov V, Hong QN. Performance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2016. Jan;104(1):47–51. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rayyan. Faster systematic reviews. 2022. https://www.rayyan.ai/ Accessed 20 Sept 2022.
  • 18.Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2022. Jun;18(2):e1230. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1230 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Blair C, Sinai I, Mukabatsinda M, Muramutsa F. Introducing the standard days method: expanding family planning options in Rwanda. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 2007; 11(2):60–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Doyle K, Kato-Wallace J, Kazimbaya S, Barker G. Transforming gender roles in domestic and caregiving work: preliminary findings from engaging fathers in maternal, newborn, and child health in Rwanda. Gender and Development. 2014. Sept 2;22(3):515–531. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Scanteianu A, Schwandt HM, Boulware A, Corey J, Herrera A, Hudler E, et al. "…the availability of contraceptives is everywhere.": coordinated and integrated public family planning service delivery in Rwanda. Reproductive Health. 2022. Dec;19(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Musabyimana A, Lundeen T, Butrick E, Sayinzoga F, Rwabufigiri BN, Walker D, et al. Before and after implementation of group antenatal care in Rwanda: a qualitative study of women’s experiences. Reproductive Health. 2019. Dec;16(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shelus V, VanEnk L, Giuffrida M, Jansen S, Connolly S, Mukabatsinda M, et al. Understanding your body matters: Effects of an entertainment-education serial radio drama on fertility awareness in Rwanda. Journal of Health Communication. 2018. Aug 3;23(8):761–772. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2018.1527873 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Van Decraen E, Michielsen K, Van Rossem R, Temmerman M, Herbots S. Sexual coercion among in-school adolescents in Rwanda: prevalence and correlates of victimization and normative acceptance. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 2021. Sept 1;16(3):139–153. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Coast E, Mwali MM, Isimbi R, Ngabonzima E, Pereznieto P, Buzby S, et al. ’If She’s Pregnant, then that Means that Her Dreams Fade Away’: exploring experiences of adolescent pregnancy and motherhood in Rwanda. European Journal of Development Research. 2021. Oct;33(5):1274–1302. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Michielsen K, Remes P, Van Rossem R, Temmerman M. Rwandan young people’s perceptions on sexuality and relationships: results from a qualitative study using the ’mailbox technique’. SAHARA J: Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS Research Alliance. 2014. Jun;11:51–60. doi: 10.1080/17290376.2014.927950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Coast E, Jones N, Francoise UM, Yadete W, Isimbi R, Gezahegne K, et al. Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health in Ethiopia and Rwanda: a qualitative exploration of the role of social norms. SAGE Open. 2019. Mar;9(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tuyisenge G, Hategeka C, Kasine Y, Luginaah I, Cechetto D, Rulisa S. Mothers’ perceptions and experiences of using maternal health-care services in Rwanda. Women & Health. 2019. Jan 2;59(1):68–84. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2018.1434591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Påfs J, Musafili A, Binder-Finnema P, Klingberg-Allvin M, Rulisa S, Essén B. Beyond the numbers of maternal near-miss in Rwanda—a qualitative study on women’s perspectives on access and experiences of care in early and late stage of pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth. 2016. Dec;16(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ndirima Z, Neuhann F, Beiersmann C. Listening to their voices: understanding rural women’s perceptions of good delivery care at the Mibilizi District Hospital in Rwanda. BMC Women’s Health. 2018. Dec;18(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Stern E, Heise L. Sexual coercion, consent and negotiation: processes of change amongst couples participating in the Indashyikirwa programme in Rwanda. Culture, Health & Sexuality. 2019. Aug 3;21(8):867–882. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2018.1521991 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mumporeze N, Han-Jin E, Nduhura D. Let’s spend a night together; i will increase your salary: an analysis of sextortion phenomenon in Rwandan society. Journal of Sexual Aggression. 2021. Jan 2;27(1):120–137. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Brunie A, Tolley EE, Ngabo F, Wesson J, Chen M. Getting to 70%: barriers to modern contraceptive use for women in Rwanda. International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics. 2013. Nov;123:e11–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kalisa R, Smeele P, van Elteren M, van den Akker T, van Roosmalen J. Facilitators and barriers to birth preparedness and complication readiness in rural Rwanda among community health workers and community members: a qualitative study. Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology. 2018. Dec;4(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s40748-018-0080-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Påfs J, Musafili A, Binder-Finnema P, Klingberg-Allvin M, Rulisa S, Essén B. ’They would never receive you without a husband’: paradoxical barriers to antenatal care scale-up in Rwanda. Midwifery. 2015. Dec 1;31(12):1149–1156. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2015.09.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Schwandt HM, Boulware A, Corey J, Herrera A, Hudler E, Imbabazi C, et al. "… the way we welcome them is how we will lead them to love family planning.": family planning providers in Rwanda foster compassionate relationships with clients despite workplace challenges. BMC Health Services Research. 2021. Dec;21(1):293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Schwandt HM, Boulware A, Corey J, Herrera A, Hudler E, Imbabazi C, et al. An examination of the barriers to and benefits from collaborative couple contraceptive use in Rwanda. Reproductive Health. 2021. Dec;18(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tolley EE, McKenna K, Mackenzie C, Ngabo F, Munyambanza E, Arcara J, et al. Preferences for a potential longer-acting injectable contraceptive: perspectives from women, providers, and policy makers in Kenya and Rwanda. Global Health: Science & Practice. 2014. May 1;2(2):182–194. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-13-00147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kestelyn E, Van Nuil JI, Umulisa MM, Umutoni G, Uwingabire A, Mwambarangwe L, et al. High acceptability of a contraceptive vaginal ring among women in Kigali, Rwanda. PLoS ONE. 2018. Jun 18;13(6): e0199096. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Adedimeji A, Sinayobye JD, Asiimwe-Kateera B, Chaudhry J, Buzinge L, Gitembagara A, et al. Social contexts as mediator of risk behaviors in Rwandan men who have sex with men (MSM): implications for HIV and STI transmission. PLoS ONE. 2019. Jan 18; 14(1). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Doyle K, Kazimbaya S, Levtov R, Banerjee J, Betron M, Sethi R, et al. The relationship between inequitable gender norms and provider attitudes and quality of care in maternal health services in Rwanda: a mixed methods study. BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth. 2021. Dec;21(1):156. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03592-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Stern E, Heise L, McLean L. The doing and undoing of male household decision-making and economic authority in Rwanda and its implications for gender transformative programming. Culture, Health & Sexuality. 2018. Sept 2;20(9):976–991. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2017.1404642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tuyisenge G, Crooks VA, Berry NS. "He lets me go although he does not go with me.": Rwandan women’s perceptions of men’s roles in maternal health. Global Health Research and Policy. 2021. Dec;6(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s41256-020-00185-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Påfs J, Rulisa S, Musafili A, Essén B, Binder-Finnema P. ‘You try to play a role in her pregnancy’: a qualitative study on recent fathers’ perspectives about childrearing and encounter with the maternal health system in Kigali, Rwanda. Global Health Action. 2016. Dec 1;9(1):31482. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ingabire MC, Mitchell K, Veldhuijzen N, Umulisa MM, Nyinawabega J, Kestelyn E, et al. Joining and leaving sex work: experiences of women in Kigali, Rwanda. Culture, Health and Sexuality. 2012. Oct 1;14(9):1037–1047. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2012.713120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Farmer DB, Berman L, Ryan G, Habumugisha L, Basinga P, Nutt C, et al. Motivations and constraints to family planning: a qualitative study in Rwanda’s southern Kayonza District. Global Health Science & Practice. 2015. Jun 1;3(2):242–54. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Schwandt HM, Boulware A, Corey J, Herrera A, Hudler E, Imbabazi C, et al. Family planning providers and contraceptive users in Rwanda employ strategies to prevent discontinuation. BMC Women’s Health. 2021. Dec;21(1):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Schwandt HM, Boulware A, Corey J, Herrera A, Hudler E, Imbabazi C, et al. "…we have to think first what we are going to feed our children before we have them…": Rwandan women use family planning to provide a better life for their children. PLoS ONE. 2021. Apr 22;16(4):e0246132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Veldhuijzen N, Nyinawabega J, Umulisa M, Kankindi B, Geubbels E, Basinga P, et al. Preparing for microbicide trials in Rwanda: focus group discussions with Rwandan women and men. Culture, Health & Sexuality. 2006. Sept 1;8(5):395–406. doi: 10.1080/13691050600859302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bazirete O, Nzayirambaho M, Uwimana MC, Umubyeyi A, Marilyn E. Factors affecting the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: A scoping review of the literature. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice. 2020;11(1):66. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hodoglugil NN, Ngabo F, Ortega J, Nyirazinyoye L, Ngoga E, Dushimeyezu E, et al. Making Abortion Safer in Rwanda: operationalization of the penal code of 2012 to expand legal exemptions and challenges. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 2017. May 23;21(1):82–92. doi: 10.29063/ajrh2017/v21i1.7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kubai A, Ahlberg BM. Making and unmaking ethnicities in the Rwandan context: implication for gender-based violence, health, and wellbeing of women. Ethnicity & Health. 2013. Aug 15;18(5):469–482. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2013.832012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Dhont N, Van de Wijgert J, Coene G, Gasarabwe A, Temmerman M. ‘Mama and papa nothing’: living with infertility among an urban population in Kigali, Rwanda. Human Reproduction. 2011. Mar 1;26(3):623–629. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq373 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Veldhuijzen NJ, Van Steijn M, Nyinawabega J, Kestelyn E, Uwineza M, Vyankandondera J, et al. Prevalence of sexually transmitted infections, genital symptoms and health-care seeking behaviour among HIV negative female sex workers in Kigali, Rwanda. International Journal of STD & AIDS. 2013. Feb;24(2):139–143. doi: 10.1177/0956462412472293 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Berger KS. The developing person through the life span. Vol. 41. New York, NY: Worth Publishers; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Buser JM, Boyd CJ, Moyer CA, Ngoma-Hazemba A, Zulu D, Mtenje JT, et al. Operationalization of the ecological systems theory to guide the study of cultural practices and beliefs of newborn care in rural Zambia. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 2020. Nov;31(6):582–590. doi: 10.1177/1043659620921224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Stanger NR. Moving “eco” back into socio-ecological models: a proposal to reorient ecological literacy into human developmental models and school systems. Human Ecology Review. 2011. Dec 1;167–173. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Nkata H, Teixeira R, Barros H. A scoping review on sexual and reproductive health behaviors among Tanzanian adolescents. Public health reviews. 2019. Dec;40(1):1–5. doi: 10.1186/s40985-019-0114-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Wulifan JK, Brenner S, Jahn A, De Allegri M. A scoping review on determinants of unmet need for family planning among women of reproductive age in low and middle income countries. BMC women’s health. 2015. Dec;16:1–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ivanova O, Rai M, Kemigisha E. A systematic review of sexual and reproductive health knowledge, experiences and access to services among refugee, migrant and displaced girls and young women in Africa. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2018. Aug;15(8):1583. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15081583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ashfikur Rahman

30 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-34373Scoping review of qualitative studies investigating reproductive health knowledge, attitudes, and practices among men and women across RwandaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Buser,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Mar 16 2023 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ashfikur Rahman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

-https://www.unfpa.org/sexual-reproductive-health?page=3&type_1=All

-https://fp2030.org/sites/default/files/Rwanda%20FP-ASRH_Strategic%20Plan%202018%20-2014%20final.pdf

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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

**********

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: Reviewer’s Comments

Thank you very much for giving me a chance to review the manuscript entitled “Scoping review of qualitative studies investigating reproductive health knowledge, attitudes, and practices among men and women across Rwanda” to the journal of “PLOS ONE”. I appreciate the time and effort that the authors have dedicated to preparing the manuscript. I read the manuscript very carefully and consequently raised the quarries and suggestions to improve the manuscript which are as follows:

Major Revisions:

1. In ‘Introduction’ a clear explanation is needed about the background of the study and the importance of this study (Line no.124).

2. The heading of methods should be materials and methods according the guideline of PLOS ONE Journal (Line no. 157).

3. In the ‘method’ section, the authors have mentioned that the search was limited to articles published from 2002 to 2022 (Line no. 175-176). So the authors should provide the logic of limiting the search within this timeframe.

4. Under the sub-heading of ‘Screening Process’, the authors mentioned that the title and abstract screening was performed by two independent researchers (Line no. 194-195). So they have to specify who actually performed the title and abstract screening process. Similarly, the authors have to clearly specify who actually reviewed the full-text articles instead of using and/or vague term like (JMB, EA, OT, FGD, RG, GK, LI, TE, 197 and/or YS) (Line no. 196-197).

5. The authors are suggested to include the ‘Study quality assessment/Quality assessment of the included literature’ point under ‘materials and methods’ section (Line no. 157). They can follow the critical appraisal skill program (CASP) checklists (CASP, 2018) to assess the quality of the qualitative studies.

6. The ‘result’ section has to revise and extend in line with the specific objectives. It would be better to add relevant quotations (if possible) from included studies under different themes (Line no. 204).

7. The ‘Discussion’ section needs major revision. Here, the authors can compare and contrast their study findings with previous studies more extensively (Line no. 312).

8. The authors have to revise the conclusion and have to specify the results-specific policy recommendations (Line no. 334).

9. Overall, the writing of the manuscript has to improve following Standard English and ‘PLOS ONE’ Journal’s guidelines.

The author(s) are suggested to rewrite the manuscript accordingly. Hopefully, the aforesaid comments and suggestions would help to enrich this manuscript.

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: 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.

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 31;18(3):e0283833. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283833.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

24 Feb 2023

23 February 2023

PLOS ONE Editorial Board

Title: "Scoping review of qualitative studies investigating reproductive health knowledge, attitudes, and practices among men and women across Rwanda” (PONE-D-22-34373)

Dear Md. Ashfikur Rahman:

We are very pleased to have the opportunity to revise our original manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE. We addressed each of the reviewer’s comments and made the necessary revisions and modifications. Responses are provided below.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Requirement #1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

Response #1: Thank you, we ensured that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements and updated the file names.

Requirement #2: We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

-https://www.unfpa.org/sexual-reproductive-health?page=3&type_1=All

-https://fp2030.org/sites/default/files/Rwanda%20FP-ASRH_Strategic%20Plan%202018%20-2014%20final.pdf

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Response #2: Thank you, in our revision we revised the overlapping text for UNFPA and FP2030 citations. We also ensured that we cited all our sources outside the methods section.

Requirement #3: Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response #3: We updated the text to include captions at the end of the manuscript for the Supporting Information files.

Reviewer comments:

Reviewer #1

Comment #1: In ‘Introduction’ a clear explanation is needed about the background of the study and the importance of this study (Line no.124).

Response #1: Thank you for your comment. To improve the manuscript, a statement was added at the beginning of the introduction to summarize the need and importance of the study, which was also integrated throughout the introduction.

Comment #2: The heading of methods should be materials and methods according the guideline of PLOS ONE Journal (Line no. 157).

Response #2: Thank you for sharing this observation. We updated the heading of this section to adhere to submission guidelines.

Comment #3: In the ‘method’ section, the authors have mentioned that the search was limited to articles published from 2002 to 2022 (Line no. 175-176). So the authors should provide the logic of limiting the search within this timeframe.

Response #3: We appreciate this suggestion for improvement and revised the text providing the logic of limiting the search within this timeframe.

Comment #4: Under the sub-heading of ‘Screening Process’, the authors mentioned that the title and abstract screening was performed by two independent researchers (Line no. 194-195). So they have to specify who actually performed the title and abstract screening process. Similarly, the authors have to clearly specify who actually reviewed the full-text articles instead of using and/or vague term like (JMB, EA, OT, FGD, RG, GK, LI, TE, 197 and/or YS) (Line no. 196-197).

Response #4: We updated the text to mention who performed the title and abstract screening process. We also removed the vague term and/or to clarify that all authors listed in brackets actually reviewed the articles.

Comment #5: The authors are suggested to include the ‘Study quality assessment/Quality assessment of the included literature’ point under ‘materials and methods’ section (Line no. 157). They can follow the critical appraisal skill program (CASP) checklists (CASP, 2018) to assess the quality of the qualitative studies.

Response #5: We updated the text to incorporate this suggestion and indicated that we followed the CASP qualitative study checklist.

Comment #6: The ‘result’ section has to revise and extend in line with the specific objectives. It would be better to add relevant quotations (if possible) from included studies under different themes (Line no. 204).

Response #6: We thank the reviewer for sharing this suggestion for improvement. We revised the ‘result’ section by adding relevant quotations throughout from included studies under different themes.

Comment #7: The ‘Discussion’ section needs major revision. Here, the authors can compare and contrast their study findings with previous studies more extensively (Line no. 312).

Response #7: We expanded the discussion to compare our study findings with previous studies more extensively.

Comment #8: The authors have to revise the conclusion and have to specify the results-specific policy recommendations (Line no. 334).

Response #8: Thank you, we revised the conclusion and specified the results-specific policy changes recommended.

Comment #9: Overall, the writing of the manuscript has to improve following Standard English and ‘PLOS ONE’ Journal’s guidelines.

Response #9: Thank you, we revised the text throughout to improve English language usage and ‘PLOS ONE’ submission guidelines.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (19.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ashfikur Rahman

20 Mar 2023

Scoping review of qualitative studies investigating reproductive health knowledge, attitudes, and practices among men and women across Rwanda

PONE-D-22-34373R1

Dear Dr. Buser,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ashfikur Rahman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thanks for addressing the comments made by the reviewers, I have gone through the revision, and I think it is suitable for publication. I communicated w

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ashfikur Rahman

23 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-34373R1

Scoping review of qualitative studies investigating reproductive health knowledge, attitudes, and practices among men and women across Rwanda

Dear Dr. Buser:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ashfikur Rahman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Search citation counts.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (16.1KB, docx)
    S2 Appendix. Data extraction form.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (100.2KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (19.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES