Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Jun 9;18(6):e0286705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286705

Effect of Healthy Transitions intervention in improving family planning uptake among adolescents and young women in Western Nepal: A pre-and post-intervention study

Dipendra Singh Thakuri 1,*, Rajan Bhandari 1, Sangita Khatri 1, Adhish Dhungana 1, Roma Balami 1, Nana Apenem Hanson-Hall 2
Editor: Gbenga Olorunfemi3
PMCID: PMC10256217  PMID: 37294784

Abstract

Background

Contraceptive use can prevent unintended pregnancies, early childbearing, and abortion-related deaths. Despite these benefits, the use of modern contraceptives remains low among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) in Nepal. To address this gap, the Healthy Transitions Project was implemented in Karnali Province, Nepal from February 2019 to September 2021. This study aimed at measuring the effect of Healthy Transitions’ intervention on improving knowledge and use of modern family planning methods among AGYW in Nepal.

Methods

We used a pre- and post-intervention study design to assess the effect of Healthy Transitions project. A quantitative survey was conducted at baseline and after the first cohort of AGYW had completed the intervention (1 year later). The baseline survey was conducted in 2019 with a cohort of 786 married and unmarried AGYW aged 15–24 years. An end line survey was conducted in 2020 with 565 AGYW who were interviewed at baseline. Data analysis was done using STATA version 15.1. The exact McNemar significance probability value was used to decide the significance of difference between baseline and endline.

Results

The knowledge and uptake of modern family planning methods have increased in the endline compared to the baseline. AGYW recognised 10 out of the ten modern methods at endline, a significant increase from 7 at baseline (p<0.001). Among AGYW, 99% were aware of sources to obtain family planning methods, compared with 92% at baseline (p< 0.001). The proportion of married AGYW using modern contraceptive methods was significantly higher at the endline 33%, than baseline (26%) (p<0.001).

Conclusion

Our results show that multilevel demand and supply-side interventions, targeting adolescents and young women, their families, community, and health system helped to improve knowledge and use of modern family planning methods among AGYW. The study suggests that these intervention approaches can be adopted to improve family planning use among adolescents and young women in other similar settings.

Background

Pregnancy in adolescence and early motherhood remains a global public health concern [1,2]. Adolescent mothers around the world disproportionately experience pregnancy-related deaths and health risks due to early childbearing and repeated pregnancies [3]. An estimated 38 million adolescent women in developing regions intend to avoid pregnancy, among them around 60% of them (23 million) lack access to modern contraceptives resulting in 10.2 million unintended pregnancies, 3.3 million unplanned births, and 5.6 million abortions every year [4].

Family planning (FP) is a key intervention to prevent these adverse health outcomes [57]. Voluntary uptake of contraceptives by adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) reduces teenage pregnancy and prevents pregnancy-related health risks including unplanned births, birth complications, and unsafe abortion [6,8]. Past evidence shows that such FP intervention can prevent 90% of abortions, 32% of maternal deaths, 20% of pregnancy-related morbidity globally, and reduce 44% of maternal mortality in low-income countries like Nepal [5,9].

Nepal has made significant progress in FP as evidenced by a reduction in total fertility rate (TFR) from 4.5 in 1996 to 2.3 in 2016 [10]. Similarly, the contraceptive prevalence rate for modern contraception among currently married women increased from 26% in 1996 to 43% in 2006 then remained stagnant through 2006 [11].

Regardless of the substantial progress in FP, inequalities in access to modern FP methods are still evident among adolescents, poor and marginalised women [12]. Nationally, only 15% of married adolescents (15–19 years) use modern contraceptive methods. The unmet need for FP among adolescents continues to remain high (35%), which has negatively influenced adolescent health outcomes due to higher adolescent pregnancy (17%) or childbirth in Nepal [13].

Similarly, while the average fertility rate in Nepal has decreased from 5.1 children per woman (1984) to 2.3 (2016), the adolescent-specific fertility rate has increased from 81 births per 1000 women (2011) to 88 births per 1000 women (2016) [11].

Family planning is a choice for many adolescents and youth. Still, they often experience barriers such as long-distance to health care facilities, negative provider attitudes, and inadequate stock of preferred contraceptives. Nepali youths are reluctant to use modem contraceptives due to misconceptions about long-term fertility risks, fear of adverse reactions, and overall lack of deeper knowledge about FP [5,14,15].

Expanding the coverage and access to effective contraceptive methods among AGYW through effective policies and programs can accelerate progress toward achieving the nation’s FP goals and universal access to reproductive health care services by 2030 [11]. Therefore, FP program has been a prioritised and long-standing strategy of the Government of Nepal [12]. This can be seen in the prominence given to FP throughout the country’s development plans and strategies (e.g., Nepal Health Sector Strategy (NHSS) 2015–2020, the Population Perspective Plan 2010–2031, and FP Costed Implementation Plan 2015–2020), including commitment for FP 2020 and achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 [16,17].

Moreover, Nepal has implemented FP program and has also promoted adolescent-friendly health services through the adolescent sexual and reproductive health (ASRH) program [12]. Various factors negatively influence the delivery of FP services including lack of information among Adolescents and Youths, lack of trained staff, and various cultural and religious factors [5]. Similarly, the existing programs are limited more to a supply-side approach and focus on an individual level of adolescent and young women. However, the programs have failed to reach husbands, families, and the community, who are key influencers for AGYW’s FP decision-making [12].

Thus, to address this gap, Save the Children, in partnership with four local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), designed and implemented the Healthy Transitions for Nepali Youth Project (Healthy Transitions) from February 2019 to September 2021. This project aimed to improve reproductive, maternal, and newborn health (RMNH) and well-being of AGYW ages 15–24 years. The project applied the socio-ecological model [18] and included gender transformative interventions at each level, such as AGYW, their husbands and in-laws, community influencers and health service delivery systems.

Evidence from other countries highlighted the importance of integrated demand and supply-side interventions in improving FP use [19,20] and maternal health services [21,22]. However, there is limited evidence among AGYW in the Nepalese context [23,24]. Hence, this study examines the effect of Healthy Transitions’ intervention in improving the uptake of FP services through the analysis of key indicators obtained from the baseline and endline surveys.

Program intervention

The Healthy Transitions intervention was implemented in 9 Rural/Municipalities of four districts in Karnali Province covering 40 health facilities catchment areas. The project applied a socio-ecological model focusing on demand and supply-side gender transformative interventions at different levels. At the demand side, individual AGYW were engaged through mentor-led curriculum-based small groups sessions where they developed sexual and reproductive health (SRH) knowledge and life skills and challenged harmful gender norms. Male partners and families were engaged through home visits and community-based games about SRH and gender, and communities were engaged through community dialogues and social events. At the supply side, Healthy Transitions strengthened the health system through capacity building of health workers, supervision, and essential equipment and renovation support.

Fig 1 Illustrates the Healthy Transitions demand and supply-side intervention focused on multilevel ranging from individuals, their immediate families, community, and health service delivery systems. The figure also conceptualises the relation between Healthy Transitions intervention at different levels and their intended outcomes for improving knowledge and uptake of FP methods.

Fig 1. Schematic representation of multilayer demand and supply-side intervention of Healthy Transitions.

Fig 1

Demand side interventions

Curriculum-based group sessions among adolescents’ girls and young women

Curriculum-based, participatory group sessions were carried out among AGYW at the project site. The curriculum-based group sessions were used to improve knowledge and abilities to delay and space pregnancies as well as address deeply rooted social and gender norms among AGYW. The sessions were conducted in 9 Municipalities of project areas among 360 AGYW groups, including 18–22 AGYW in each group. These sessions were conducted separately among married and unmarried AGYW groups. The project mobilised and trained the local mentors for conducting group sessions among AGYW groups. One mentor was assigned to manage three AGYW groups. In addition, the project appointed social mobilisers to provide technical support to mentors to conduct quality group sessions. The Healthy Transition project, under the leadership of the Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP), National Health Education Information and Communication Center (NHEICC), and Department of Health Services (DoHS) developed a standard curriculum called “Swastha Rupantaran” (Healthy Transition). The “Swastha Rupantaran” curriculum consists of 24 different sessions related to FP and Maternal and Neonatal Health (MNH), such as Menstruation cycle and fertility, Sex and Gender, Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights, Gender-based violence, Sexual Transmitted Infection, HIV and AIDS, basic life skills, financial literacy, and mental health problems in pregnant and post-partum adolescent girls including two sessions that explicitly talk about FP. The two-family planning-related sessions include 1) family planning and contraceptive methods 2) healthy timing and spacing. The FP sessions cover the basics of family planning and its benefits, different FP methods, possible side effects, myths/misconceptions regarding FP use, and healthy timing and spacing. The average duration of 1.5–2 hours session was conducted on a fortnightly basis to complete 24 sessions.

Health facility exposure visit for adolescents’ girls and young women

The health facility (HF) exposure visit was carried out for AGYW. The exposure visits were conducted to make AGYW aware of the Reproductive Maternal and Neonatal Health (RMNH) including FP services available in their nearest health facilities. The Social mobilisers facilitated exposure visits for all AGYW group members during the project period. During exposure visits, health facility staff provided detailed information about availability of services and the timings of the health facility.

Home visits to newlywed couples, husbands, and in-laws using tablet-based job aid

Project developed a tablet-based job aid in close coordination with NHEICC/ DoHS, which consists of six short videos and a user’s guide, to be used during a visit with newlywed couples’, husbands, and in-laws at their homes. Each of the videos were of an average 6.5 min duration. Project appointed and trained social mobilisers to conduct home visits in targeted households using tablet-based job aid (videos). The videos were displayed to the target populations at their homes. The videos were used to promote reflection and critical thinking around six different key behaviors and norms related to FP use, gender equity in the household, husband’s engagement in newborn and mother’s care, mother-in-law’s support during husband’s absence considering migration, the young wife’s role in major household decision making and girls education.

Pragati game

Pragati game is an interactive social and behavior change intervention which comprised of nine games adapted from Save the Children’s Fertility Awareness for Community Transformation (FACT) project funded by USAID [25]. The game aims to improve knowledge on fertility, promote conversations in communities around fertility, family planning, and social norms that drive birth timing and family size. Mentors played Pragati games on a regular basis, in different settings with the support of social mobilisers. The Pragati game was played separately among different groups such as among AGYW, husbands, and community influencers in the community. The AGYW played Pragati game during group sessions and school settings whereas community influencers and husbands played in the community setting.

Supply-side interventions

Training to health workers

The skilled-based training was provided to enhance the capacity of Health Workers (HWs) to deliver quality FP services. Project supported to train HWs on Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive (LARC) such as Intra-Uterine Contraceptive Device (IUCD) and Implant, Comprehensive Family Planning Counseling (CoFP), and Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health (ASRH) training. The training was provided based on the need assessment in the health facilities (HFs) of the project area and as per the National Health Training Center’s (NHTC) training package. From 2019 to 2020, 28 HWs were trained on implant training, 12 Midwives were trained on IUCD training, 31 HWs were trained on CoFP counselling training, and 51 HWs trained on ASRH training.

Onsite assessment and clinical coaching for Implant and IUCD service provider

Onsite assessment and clinical coaching were organised to assess the knowledge and skills of the FP service providers and provide onsite coaching support based on the identified gaps. Over the course of the project, NHTC certified coaches provided on-site coaching support to HWs at the health facility level on a regular basis. Also, regular follow-up visits were carried out by the project team to see the progress.

Essential RMNH and FP equipment’s and supplies support to health facilities and birthing centers

Essential equipment and supplies were provided to different HFs in the project area to improve the quality of FP and MNH services. Based on the need assessment and identified gaps, the equipment support was provided to 40 HFs and five referral hospitals of the project area. The specific equipment supported for family planning services were implant sets, IUCD sets, and FP counseling kits. Apart from these, some other equipment provided were examination table, waiting bed, essential equipment and furniture for health facilities and birthing centers. However, the equipment and supplies support did not cover FP commodities.

Methods

Study design and setting

We used pre- and post-intervention study to assess the effect of Healthy Transitions’ intervention for improving knowledge and use of modern FP methods among AGYW. The evaluation of Healthy Transitions was conducted externally using quantitative survey at baseline and after the first cohort of AGYW had completed the intervention (1year later). The baseline survey was conducted in 2019 with a cohort of 786 married and unmarried AGYW (aged 15–24 years) and an endline survey was conducted in 2020 with 565 of the original AGYW sampled at baseline of the first cohort. This study was carried out in the 9 local government areas or municipalities/rural municipalities of four districts in Karnali province, Nepal. The constitution of Nepal 2015 defines local government as rural municipalities and municipalities [26]. Karnali Province is one of the lowest-ranked provinces on the Human Development Index (HDI) [27]. Multidimensional poverty is highly prevalent in this province, where more than half (51%) of its population fall under the poverty line [28]. Over 4 in 10 (44.3%) women aged 15–49 years in the Karnali entered their first marriage before 18 [11]. Of young women aged 15–19 years in Karnali Province, about 15% have begun childbearing [11]. The total estimated population of Karnali (1,570,418) live in (298,174) households. The estimated total population of four Healthy Transitions’ districts is 920,826, with 180,261 adolescents and young populations [29]. We selected 9 Municipalities of Karnali considering the high adolescent population, geographical remoteness, and low service uptake rate. Other municipalities were not chosen to avoid duplicating activities that could have been implemented by other organisations working in those areas.

Study participants

The baseline and endline surveys were conducted among AGYW aged 15–24 years by IMPAQ LLC (the consulting firm charged with designing and conducting the research), and its Nepal-based data collection partner, Solutions.

Sampling frame, and techniques

The sampling frame for this study includes unmarried and married AGYW aged 15 to 24 years who were invited to participate in the Healthy Transitions voluntarily. We followed a two-stage sampling strategy to randomly select young married and unmarried aged 15–24 years from among a list of project participants. In the first stage, at each site, we randomly selected two mentors using probability-proportional-to-size sampling for a total of 80 mentors. We used the total number of AGYW program participants (married and unmarried) in groups assigned to each mentor as a size measure. This procedure ensured all AGYW program participants had the same chance to be included in the study. In the second stage, 10 AGYW program participants per mentor were randomly selected for the survey to reach a target sample of 800 AGYW respondents. In addition, we included in our list up to four randomly selected extra AGYW participants (per each mentor) as replacements, in case some of the originally selected AGYW participants would not be available for the survey. Out of a list of 1,120 AGYW participants, we were able to identify and contact 956 AGYW and conduct 786 completed surveys in baseline and 565 in endline. Out of 221 AGYW who were not surveyed during the endline, 95.02% migrated for higher secondary education, marriage and moved to India with their husbands for labor work. The remaining 5% were not surveyed because of their inconsistent participation in the project. Furthermore, for analysing family planning use, we have only considered married adolescents and young women, comprising 290 in baseline and 212 in endline.

Outcome variables

The outcome variables of this study include knowledge and the use of FP methods. We assessed the use of any FP methods and modern FP methods. Similarly, knowledge regarding FP was assessed among AGYW. FP knowledge was assessed by asking whether they know about different modern contraceptive methods such as Condom (yes/no), Injectables (yes/no), Pill (yes/no), Female sterilization (yes/no), Male sterilization (yes/no), Implants (yes/no), IUCD (yes/no), LAM (yes/no), Emergency contraceptive (yes/no), Standard days (yes/no). Correctly knowing about modern contraceptive methods would mean the respondents had heard about different types of modern contraceptive methods. Similarly, they were assessed on their knowledge about the place to obtain a method of FP (yes/no), knows about the fertile period (yes/no), knows when the woman becomes pregnant before the menstrual period returns (yes/no).

The practice of FP was assessed to understand the use of modern FP methods. Questions related to use of modern FP methods included if the respondent have ever used any modern method or tried in any way to delay or avoid getting pregnant? (yes/no), and the current use of FP methods assessed by whether respondents currently doing something or using any modern FP method to delay or avoid getting pregnant? (yes/no).

Explanatory variables

Explanatory variables were selected based on the previous studies and a review of previously published literature [11,30]. Variables such as age, marital status, parity, school status, education of respondents, ethnicity, and wealth were categorised for this study. The respondent’s age was categorised into 15–19 years and 20–24 years. The marital status of respondents was categorised into two groups: ever married and never married. Similarly, parity was categorised based on birth status—never given birth, 1 birth, and 2 or + birth. Respondent’s school status was categorised into two groups: In school and out of school. Also, the education level of respondents was categorised into two groups: Less than 8 grade and grade 8 and above. The ethnicity was categorised into three groups: Bhramin/Chhetri, Dalit, Janajati, and Thakuri/Dashnami. Similarly, the respondent’s wealth was categorised into three groups: Lowest, Middle, and Highest. We created a wealth score for each individual using principal component analysis (PCA). We ranked each respondent by their assigned scores and divided them into the wealth categories: women with the lowest, middle, and highest socioeconomic status.

Data collection tools and techniques

The digitised survey tool was developed based on the literature review [11]. The survey questionnaire consisted of sociodemographic information of the AGYW, knowledge regarding FP, and its use. Data was collected through Survey Solutions, a software allowing it to be administered using mobile phones, allowing for automated skip patterns, and eliminating the need for data entry from paper surveys. The survey tool was pretested to ensure the quality and necessary modification was done in the flow of the questionnaire and language style. The data collection for this study took place twice, before and after the intervention with the same participants. A face to face interview was carried out to collect the data, and each interview lasted for 30-45min. The trained enumerators collected the data before the intervention in February- March 2019 for baseline and after the intervention in March 2020 for endline. The enumerators were trained on the data collection process and research ethics before conducting interviews and the field work, managers and field supervisors worked closely to oversee data quality and to provide the team with technical assistance. Furthermore, several measures were taken to avoid biases and spillover effect in the study. The overall project interventions were divided into two cohorts run sequentially from 2019–2020 and 2020–2021. While community activities occurred for each cohort, the findings for this study were based on a sample of participants from the first cohort only and participants were engaged at the end of their group activities. Similarly, household members engaged in home visits and partner activities were not repeated across cohorts. Another control measure was to have an external and reputable consulting firm to conduct the data collection and analysis for this study.

Data analysis

Data analysis was done using STATA version15.1. Collected data were cleaned and cross-checked to ensure consistency. Findings of descriptive analyses were reported with frequency and proportion of knowledge and use of FP methods. The significance of the difference between before and after intervention was tested through McNemar test. The exact McNemar significance probability value was used to decide the significance of difference. All the independent variables were dichotomized before conducting descriptive analysis and running McNemar test.

Research ethics approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Board of Nepal Health Research Council. Before data collection, we obtained permission from the respective municipalities of four study districts. The research assistants obtained informed consent from all participants before the interview and parental verbal consent was obtained for adolescent girls under 18 years of age. The participants were assured of confidentiality and privacy during data collection. Participation of the study respondents was voluntary where participants were provided with the option of terminating the interview at any time. Data collection was done only among participants who agreed to take part in the study.

Results

Table 1 depicts the distribution of respondents according to sociodemographic characteristics in baseline and endline. The baseline and endline surveys were conducted among 786 and 565 AGYW, respectively. Over 6 in 10 women were between the age of 15–19 years in both the baseline and endline participants. Similarly, most respondents belonged to Brahmin and Chhetri ethnicity, with (N = 786, n = 440, 56%) in the baseline and (N = 565, n = 320, 58%) in the endline. There was a similar proportion of AGYW in all four districts in both baseline and endline. Most of the AGYW were in schools, with (N = 786, n = 504, 64%) in the baseline and (N = 565, n = 375, 66%) in the endline, as show in Table 1.

Table 1. Baseline and endline characteristics of Adolescent Girls and Young Women (AGYW).

Variables Categories N = 786 (Baseline) N = 565 (Endline)
n (%) n (%)
District Dailekh  180 (23%)  131(23%)
Surkhet  200(25%)  139 (25%)
Kalikot  198 (25%)  150 (27%)
Jajarkot  208 (27%)  145 (26%)
Age group 15–19  524 (67%)  389 (69%)
20–24  262 (33%)  176 (31%)
Marriage Never Married  496 (63%)  363 (64%)
Ever Married  290 (37%)  202 (36%)
Parity Never given birth  549(70%)  400 (71%)
1 birth 113 (15%)  85 (15%)
2+ births 124 (15%)  80 (14%)
School status In school 504 (64%)  375 (66%)
Out of school 282 (36%)  190 (34%)
Education Less than grade 8 251(32%)  179 (32%)
Grade 8 and above  535 (68%)  386 (68%)
Ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri  443 (56%)  327 (58%)
Dalit 240 (31%)  171 (30%)
Janajati 74 (9%) 50 (9%)
Thakuri/Dashnami 29 (4%) 17 (3%)
Wealth Lowest  272(35%)  187 (33%)
Middle 293 (37%)  224 (40%)
Highest 221 (28%)  154 (27%)

The attrition analysis revealed that the overall sample at endline had similar characteristics, as measured at baseline, to the sample that was not surveyed at endline. The data presented in Table 2 shows the subgroup composition of AGYW surveyed and not surveyed at endline. However, there are some differences in age and school status. Compared to AGYW in the endline sample, AGYW not surveyed at endline are more likely to be older (39% were 20-24-year-olds at baseline vs 31% of AGYW surveyed at endline), less likely to have been in school at baseline (42% were out of school at baseline vs 34% of AGYW surveyed at endline) (Table 2).

Table 2. Characteristics of AGYW survey respondents, by attrition.


Variables

Categories
Surveyed at endline
(N = 565)
Not surveyed at endline (N = 221)
N % N %

District
Dailekh 131 23 49 22
Jajarkot 139 25 69 31
Kalikot 150 26 48 22
Surkhet 145 26 55 25

Age group
15–19 389 69 135 61**
20–24 176 31 86 39**

Marriage
Never married 363 64 133 60
Ever married 202 36 88 40

Parity
Never given birth 400 71 149 67
1 birth 85 15 28 13
2+ births 80 14 44 20

School Status
In school 375 66 129 58**
Out of school 190 34 92 42**

Education
Less than grade 8 179 32 72 33
Grade 8 or above 386 68 149 67

Ethnicity
Brahmin/Chhetri 327 58 123 56
Dalit 171 30 70 32
Janajati 50 9 21 9
Thakuri/Dashnami 17 3 7 3

Wealth
Lowest 187 33 85 39
Middle 224 40 69 31
Highest 154 27 67 30

P-value obtained from the chi-squared test. **p<0.05, ***p<0.01.

The knowledge on FP and prevalence of FP uses among married AGYW significantly increased after 12 months of intervention. AGYW recognised 10 out of the ten modern methods, a significant increase from 7 at baseline (p<0.001). Similarly, participants were able to mention 11 any FP methods in the endline which was significantly increased from 8 at baseline (p<0.001). Among AGYW, 99% were aware of source to obtain FP methods, compared with 92% at baseline (p<0.001). The change from the proportion of married young women using modern contraceptive methods at baseline (26%) to that at endline (33%) was statistically significant (p<0.001) (Table 3).

Table 3. Family planning knowledge and use in baseline and endline.

Variables
(Baseline) N = 786 (Endline)
N = 565
% Change
P-value
N1
N2
(n = N2-N1)
Family planning knowledge N (%) N (%) (%) P-value
Knows place to obtain FP methods 723 (92%) 559 (99%)
7%
<0.001
Knows that a woman can become pregnant before the menstrual period returns 307(39%) 356 (63%)
24%

0.928
Knows about the fertile period
291 (37%) 379 (67%) 30% 0.721
Family planning use (Baseline, n = 290 and Endline, n = 212)
Use of any methods 84 (29%) 81(38%) 9% <0.001†
Use of modern methods 55 (26%) 70 (33%) 7% <0.001†

P-value is Exact McNemar significance probability value.

† Significant at p<0.05.

There is variation in the use of modern FP methods by the socio-demographic characteristics of married AGYW (Table 4). Married adolescents and young women in Surkhet district have the highest proportion of using modern FP methods (57%) in endline, increased from (32%) in baseline. But the difference was not statistically significant. The data showed a significant increase in FP use among Dailekh and Kalikot district and both age groups of married young women (15–19 and 20–24 years). Similarly, a significant increment in FP use was also noticed in the women with other demographic characteristics. After 12 months of intervention, the positive difference in FP use was found among women who are in school (7%, p = 0.001), women from Janajati (29%, p<0.001), Dalit (18%, p = 0.007) and Thakuri/Dashnami ethnicity (18%, p = 0.004), those from the middle (10%, p = 0.001) and lowest wealth quantile (17%, p = 0.022), women with education less than grade eight (17%, p<0.001) and grade eight and above (4%, p = 0.002) and women with no childbirth (6%, p = <0.001) and having one childbirth (6%, p = 0.001). However, the use of modern FP methods was lower among the women with highest wealth quantile, those from Jajarkot district, and who belonged to advantaged ethnic group (Brahmin and Chhetri) in the endline than in the baseline, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Use of modern Family Planning methods in baseline and endline groups of married adolescent girls and young women.

Characteristics Baseline Endline
Change

P-Value
Total number
(N = 290)
Number of FP use (%) Total number
(N = 212)
Number of FP use (%)
District N (%) N (%) %
Dailekh 81 22 (27%) 58 21 (36%) 9% 0.001
Jajarkot 66 25 (38%) 53 16 (30%) -8% 0.101
Kalikot 69 16 (23%) 50 15 (30%) 7% 0.001
Surkhet 74 24 (32%) 51 29 (57%) 24% 0.371
Age Group
15–19 52 14 (27%) 48 18 (38%) 11% 0.001
20–24 238 73 (31%) 164 63 (38%) 8% 0.003
Parity
Never given birth 53 6 (11%) 29 5 (17%) 6% <0.001
1 birth 113 34 (30%) 83 30 (36%) 6% 0.001
2+ births 124 47 (38%) 100 46 (46%) 8% 0.148
School status
In school 250 73 (29%) 182 66 (36%) 7% 0.001
Out of school 40 14 (35%) 30 15 (50%) 15% 0.192
Education
Less than grade 8 94 24 (26%) 53 23 (43%) 17% 0.005
Grade 8 and above 196 63 (32%) 159 58 (36%) 4% 0.002
Ethnicity
Brahmin/Chhettri 142 50 (35%) 111 36 (32%) -3% 0.001
Dalit 112 29 (26%) 80 35 (44%) 18% 0.007
Janajati 24 5 (21%) 14 7 (50%) 29% 0.013
Thakuri/Dashnami 12 3 (25%) 7 3 (43%) 18% 0.004
Wealth
Lowest 104 26 (25%) 31 13 (42%) 17% 0.002
Middle 103 28 (27%) 57 21 (37%) 10% 0.001
Highest 83 33 (40%) 124 47 (38%) -2% 0.033

P-value is Exact McNemar significance probability value.

† Significant at p<0.05.

Discussion

This paper has highlighted the results of the Healthy Transitions project, which was designed to respond to the knowledge and behavior gap among AGYW, prevailing social and gender norms related to FP in the community, and critical barriers faced by health facility staff to provide FP services. In this paper, we examined the key indicators related to knowledge and contraceptives use among AGYW to measure the changes over the course of the project implementation. Based on the results, the knowledge and uptake of modern contraceptives has increased in the endline compared to the baseline. The significant difference of FP use was observed among AGYW of different ages, wealth status, education, school status, parity, and ethnicity. The proportion of changes in FP use was found to be significant among adolescent and young women of both the age groups (15–19 and 20–24 years), those who are in school, women with no childbirth and having one birth, women who had less than eight grade and eighth grades and above education, women with middle and lowest wealth quintile and those who belonged to Dalit, Janajati and Thakuri/Dashnami ethnic groups.

The finding indicates that the integrated demand and supply-side interventions at different level (e.g., Individuals, their families, community, and health service delivery system) may have improved knowledge and contraceptive use among AGYW in four districts of Karnali province Nepal.

AGYW in the endline had higher knowledge about modern FP methods and the place to obtain FP services. Women’s knowledge about FP is known to influence their use of contraceptive services [31]. The demand-side interventions such as curriculum-based interactive group sessions, home visits, and Pragati games may have helped to increase FP knowledge. The finding of this study is in line with similar studies done in other low and middle-income countries [3,32].

Similarly, the proportion of married young women using modern contraceptive methods has increased after 12 months of intervention. The result of this study is found to be consistent with a similar study done in Malawi where demand and supply-side interventions led to an increase in Couple Years Protection (CYP) and long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) uptake [19]. The Healthy Transitions intervention such as interactive and participatory group-based sessions, the interactions of husbands and family members after door-to-door home visits, and training and onsite coaching on LARC and ASRH for health workers may have increased the use of FP methods. Furthermore, health facility exposure visits by adolescents provided an opportunity to be familiar with FP services available in the health facility and encouraged them to use FP methods they needed. The uptake of FP methods is negatively influenced by socio-cultural and religious barriers, including lack of FP information, fear of side effects, harmful cultural beliefs, and prevailing deeply rooted gender and social norms [5,33]. The interactive and participatory group sessions may have minimised these barriers through empowering AGYW and improving knowledge and attitude towards FP methods.

Similarly, the household and community level interaction and dialogues among husbands, in-laws, and community influencers using real story-based videos, male engagement tools, and Pragati games may have worked to address the prevailing social and gender norms and build supportive FP attitudes and behavior among husbands and families in the intervention area. The implementation study conducted in India [34] has also highlighted the effectiveness of multi-level community mobilisation interventions to increase modern FP methods.

Furthermore, skilled health care providers, equipment and supplies are critical in family planning programs to meet the supply-side needs for FP provision. Inadequately trained staff could be a barrier to the provision of FP services [35,36]. Therefore, the Healthy Transitions’ supply-side intervention that included training and onsite coaching to health care providers including provision of supervision, essential equipment and renovation support may have helped to improve the quality of FP services at the health facility level. A similar supply-side approach was evident to increase the uptake of FP in other countries [34,36].

This study showed variation in the proportion of change in the FP method used by different socio-demographic characteristics of married adolescents and young women. The proportion of changes in FP use was higher among adolescent women aged 15–19 years than those aged 20–24 years. This finding suggested that the project intervention may have provided significant contribution and benefits among the married adolescent women and their husbands to influence the use of FP methods. Additionally, the young women with no childbirth or having one child had increased their use of FP methods compared to the women with two or more children. This could be because the women with no children or having one child may wanted to delay their pregnancy or keep spacing for next child and hence were encouraged to use contraceptives to delay or space their childbirth after being exposed to the Healthy Transitions interventions.

The findings are in line with the trends of FP utilisation as reported in the most recent Nepal Demographic Health Survey (NDHS) 2016 and other previous study from abroad [11]. It is to be noted that the Healthy Transitions intervention were supportive of the women having the lowest and middle wealth status, and belonged to disadvantaged ethnic group (Dalit, and Janajati). Previous studies conducted in Nepal [31,37] and other countries [38,39] have shown that these groups of women are less likely to use FP methods due to the lack of information on FP, prevailing social and gender norms, and poor decision-making power to use health services. Thus, home visits by social mobilisers using tablet-based videos, male engagement tools, integration of Pragati games in the group sessions, and community dialogues, which are designed to reach the AGYW with no education and from the poor and marginalised communities [26] were probably supportive of making AGYW aware and empowering through meaningful engagement and participation in the intervention components.

While most of the districts had positive changes in contraceptive use at endline than baseline, only Dailekh and Kalikot had a statistically significant increase in modern contraceptive use. A plausible explanation could be that both the districts are comparatively poor in terms of geographical accessibility, road facility, and access to health facilities with more choices of contraceptives. So, Healthy Transition’s multilevel interventions could have been supportive to address those gaps.

These positive findings should be interpreted with some limitations in mind. First, regarding the limitation of intervention design, RCT or a quasi-experimental study with a comparison group was not feasible given implementation and budgetary constraints which may affect the interpretation of the results. Second, while we have data from the young women who made life transitions over the past year, given that the majority of the unmarried AGYW in our sample are quite young, data collected one year later does not capture the long-term impact the program may have on age at marriage, first childbirth, use of family planning, and birth spacing. Third, some of the important covariates such as desire for additional children, sex of living children, women decision-making/autonomy power, currently living with husband or not, and exposure to media that previous studies found important predictors of contraceptive practices were not included in this study [13,39]. Fourth, the self-selection of AGYW who signed up to participate in Healthy Transitions. These proactive populations are generally more educated than the average population. Lastly, we rely on self-reported data, which may be biased toward socially desirable answers. Also, the attrition analysis has found differences in some characteristics i.e., age and school status, of AGYW sample not surveyed at endline. Thus, these differences should be kept in mind while interpreting overall findings. Despite the limitations, our study provides important information about the contribution of multilevel demand and supply-side interventions to address the FP needs of most underserved groups, such as AGYW.

Conclusion

This study suggests that integrated demand and supply-side interventions targeting multilevel target beneficiaries such as adolescent and young women, their immediate family including husbands and in-laws, community members, and health systems may positively improve knowledge and use of FP methods among AGYW. By adopting these intervention strategies, the national family planning program could help to improve the use of contraceptive methods among AGYW in other similar resource-poor and rural settings. Healthy Transitions has seen the start of sustainability as some adolescent girl and young women groups have converted to community-based mother’s groups and registered with their local government. Several local governments have also allocated budget for the Healthy Transitions activities to continue within local activities beyond the life of the project. Future research on the cost effectiveness and efficiency of scaling and institutionalising Healthy Transitions could serve as markers for the sustainability of the gains from Healthy Transitions.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Social Development, Karnali Province as well as the four local partners: Social Awareness Center Nepal, Surkhet; Karnali Integrated Rural Development and Research Center, Kalikot; Everest Club, Dailekh; Panch Tara Yuwa Samrakshak Manch, Jajarkot who implemented the intervention in Karnali Province, Nepal. In addition, the authors are grateful to the Save the Children International field staff who led day-to-day implementation in each district and provided technical backstopping to the partners, Gita Shah, Chandra Singh Sejuwal, Khadak Karki, Adweeti Nepal, and Kripa Shrestha. The authors acknowledge the valuable contribution of IMPAQ LLC and its Nepal-based data collection partner, Solutions, for conducting the evaluations. Most importantly, the authors are grateful to the adolescent girls and young women, their partners, families, and communities for engaging with the interventions and sharing their insights and learning with us through the evaluation.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This study was supported by Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies under Healthy Transitions for Nepali Youth Project. The funding body has no contribution and connection to the study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data in writing manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kumar M, Huang KY. Impact of being an adolescent mother on subsequent maternal health, parenting, and child development in Kenyan low-income and high adversity informal settlement context. PLoS One. 2021;16: 1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248836 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gurung R, Målqvist M, Hong Z, Poudel PG, Sunny AK, Sharma S, et al. The burden of adolescent motherhood and health consequences in Nepal. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20: 1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03013-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Morgan G, Kanesathasan A, Akiode A. Effects of a community-based program on voluntary modern contraceptive uptake among young first-time parents in Cross River State, Nigeria. Glob Heal Sci Pract. 2020;8: 783–798. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-20-00111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Darroch JE, Woog V, Bankole A. ADDING IT UP: Costs and Benefits of Meeting the Contraceptive Needs of Adolescents. Guttmacher Inst. 2016. Available: https://www.guttmacher.org/report/adding-it-meeting-contraceptive-needs-of-adolescents. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bhatt N, Bhatt B, Neupane B, Karki A, Bhatta T, Thapa J, et al. Perceptions of family planning services and its key barriers among adolescents and young people in Eastern Nepal: A qualitative study. PLoS One. 2021;16: 1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chola L, McGee S, Tugendhaft A, Buchmann E, Hofman K. Scaling up family planning to reduce maternal and child mortality: The potential costs and benefits of modern contraceptive use in South Africa. PLoS One. 2015;10: 1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Makola L, Mlangeni L, Mabaso M, Chibi B, Sokhela Z, Silimfe Z, et al. Predictors of contraceptive use among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) aged 15 to 24 years in South Africa: results from the 2012 national population-based household survey. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19: 1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0861-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Amo-Adjei J, Mutua M, Athero S, Izugbara C, Ezeh A. Improving family planning services delivery and uptake: Experiences from the “reversing the Stall in Fertility Decline in Western Kenya Project.” BMC Res Notes. 2017;10: 1–5. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2821-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nsubuga H, Sekandi JN, Sempeera H, Makumbi FE. Contraceptive use, knowledge, attitude, perceptions and sexual behavior among female University students in Uganda: A cross-sectional survey. BMC Womens Health. 2016;16: 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12905-016-0286-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Arjyal A, Joshi D, Maharjan U, Regmi S, Baral SC, Marston C, et al. Access to family planning services by Muslim communities in Nepal–barriers and evidence gaps. 2016. Available: https://www.herdint.com/publications/9. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ministry of Health and Population NNE and III. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2016,Kathmandu, Nepal: 2017. Available: https://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-FR336-DHS-Final-Reports.cfm. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Governement of Nepal, Ministry of Helath and Population, Department of Health Services FHD. National Family Planning Costed Implementation Plan 2012–2015. 2015. Available: https://nepal.unfpa.org/en/publications/national-family-planning-costed-implementation-plan-2015-2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lamichhane KD. Use of Contraceptive Methods among Young Married Women in Nepal. Tribhuvan Univ J. 2018;32: 75–96. doi: 10.3126/tuj.v32i2.24704 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chola M, Hlongwana K, Ginindza TG. Patterns, trends, and factors associated with contraceptive use among adolescent girls in Zambia (1996 to 2014): a multilevel analysis. BMC Womens Health. 2020;20: 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12905-020-01050-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Morris JL, Rushwan H. Adolescent sexual and reproductive health: The global challenges. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2015;131: S40–S42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shrestha DR, Shrestha A, Ghimire J. Emerging challenges in family planning programme in Nepal. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2012;10: 108–112. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Government of Nepal, National Planning Comission K. National Review of Sustainable Development Goals. 2020. Available: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26541VNR_2020_Nepal_Report.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mcleroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An Ecological Perspective on Health Promotion Programs. Heal Educ Behav. 1988;15: 351–377. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lemani C, Kamtuwanje N, Phiri B, Speizer IS, Singh K, Mtema O, et al. Effect of family planning interventions on couple years of protection in Malawi. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;141: 37–44. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mwaikambo L, Speizer IS, Schurmann A, Morgan G, Fikree F. What works in family planning interventions: A systematic review. Stud Fam Plann. 2011;42: 67–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2011.00267.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hirai M, Morris J, Luoto J, Ouda R, Atieno N, Quick R. The impact of supply-side and demand-side interventions on use of antenatal and maternal services in western Kenya: A qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20: 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03130-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Amudhan S, Rai SK, Pandav CS, Krishnan A, Mani K. Effectiveness of demand and supply sideinterventions in promoting institutional deliveries—a quasi-experimental trial from rural North India. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42: 769–780. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Turner RC, Millns H, Neil HAW, Stratton IM, Manley SE, Matthews DR, et al. Risk factors for coronary artery disease in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: United Kingdom prospective diabetes study (UKPDS: 23). Br Med J. 1998;316: 823–828. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7134.823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Agha S, Karim AM, Balal A, Sosler S. The impact of a reproductive health franchise on client satisfaction in rural Nepal. Health Policy Plan. 2007;22: 320–328. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czm025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Institute for Reproductive Health GU. Fertility Awareness for Community Transformation (FACT). Available: https://irh.org/cycletel/.
  • 26.Secretariat CA, Durbar S. The Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Unofficial translation). Nepal Gazette 2015 p. Art. 58. Available: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/nep155698b.pdf.
  • 27.Government of Nepal NPC. Nepal Human Development Report 2014 Beyond Geography, Unlocking Human Potential. 2014. Available: https://www.np.undp.org/. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Government of Nepal NPC. Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, Nepal. October. 2019. Available: http://www.unicef.org/statistics/index_24302.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.CBS. National Population and Housing Census 2011; National Planning Commission Secretariates, Central Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Available: http://cbs.gov.np/?p=2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bhandari R, Pokhrel KN, Gabrielle N, Amatya A. Long acting reversible contraception use and associated factors among married women of reproductive age in Nepal. PLoS One. 2019;14: 1–13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Thapa NR. Factors Influencing the Use of Reproductive Health Services Among Young Women in Nepal: Analysis of the 2016 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey. 2020; 1–12. doi: 10.21203/rs.2.23047/v1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gottschalk LB, Ortayli N. Interventions to improve adolescents’ contraceptive behaviors in low- and middle-income countries: A review of the evidence base. Contraception. 2014;90: 211–225. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.04.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wasti SP, Simmons R, Limbu N, Chipanta S, Haile L, Velcoff J SD. Side-effects and social norms influencing family planning use in Nepal. Kathmandu Univ Med J. 2017;15: 222–229. Available: http://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&from=export&id=L621649683. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Subramanian L, Simon C, Daniel EE. Increasing contraceptive use among young married couples in Bihar, India: Evidence from a decade of implementation of the PRACHAR project. Glob Heal Sci Pract. 2018;6: 328–342. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Staveteig S, Shrestha N, Gurung S, Kampa KT. Barriers to family planning use in Eastern Nepal: Results from a mixed methods study. DHS Qual Res Stud. 2018; 1–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gueye B, Wesson J, Koumtingue D, Stratton S, Viadro C, Talla H, et al. Mentoring, task sharing, and community outreach through the tutoratplus approach: Increasing use of long-Acting reversible contraceptives in Senegal. Glob Heal Sci Pract. 2016;4: S33–S43. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mehata S, Paudel YR, Dotel BR, Singh DR, Poudel P, Barnett S. Inequalities in the use of family planning in rural Nepal. Biomed Res Int. 2014. doi: 10.1155/2014/636439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Singh P, Singh KK, Singh A, Pandey A. The levels and trends of contraceptive use before first birth in India (2015–16): A cross-sectional analysis. BMC Public Health. 2020;20: 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08917-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dagnew GW, Asresie MB, Fekadu GA, Gelaw YM. Modern contraceptive use and factors associated with use among postpartum women in Ethiopia; Further analysis of the 2016 Ethiopia demographic and health survey data. BMC Public Health. 2020;20. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08802-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tsegaye Lolaso Lenjebo

15 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-10311Improving family planning uptake among adolescents and young women in Western Nepal: Learning from the implementation of HTNYP ProjectPLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Dipendra S Thakuri,

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 ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

Please submit your revised manuscript by September 15/2022. 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,

Tsegaye Lolaso Lenjebo, MPH

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 note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This manuscript aimed at measuring the effect of the Healthy Transitional for Nepali Youth Project (HTYP) in increasing FP knowledge and use among adolescent girls and young women in Karnali Province of Nepal. The authors conducted a pre and post-intervention survey with adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) aged 15-24 (786 in the baseline and 565 in the endline) and used descriptive analysis to assess the impact of the intervention. The study concluded that the intervention is effective in increasing knowledge and use of contraception among AGYW and suggested scaling up the intervention. Though this manuscript addresses one important under-research topic, I have several comments on data, method of analysis, and conclusions. Addressing these comments would strengthen this paper.

� Abstract: Some information on sample size and measurement is not consistent and clear. For example, the sample size in the endline survey is reported 565 in the abstract but in the sampling frame section (page 10) it is reported 558. Similarly, in the abstract, the knowledge of FP method is mentioned but in the method section (under outcome variable, page 10) – the ‘correct knowledge of the FP method’ is mentioned. The author never defines ‘correctly knowledge of FP methods’ in the manuscript. The abstract needs to be revised based on what revisions the authors would like to make based on my comments on the method section below.

� Background: Page 3, third para – the author said that the prevalence rate of modern FP methods among currently married women in Nepal noticeably increased from 26% in 1996 to 43% in 2016 which is not really true. In fact, the contraceptive prevalence rate among married women has been stagnant at 43% since 2006 in Nepal.

� Page 4, last para – Authors claim that there is a limited body of knowledge about the impact of integrated demand and supply-side intervention in improving FP use, maternal health etc in Nepal – this is not true. These pieces of evidence are available for women of reproductive ages but not for adolescent and young women.

� Page 5 – Program Intervention – author said that the project is implemented in 9 local government areas of four districts – what does ‘local government areas’ mean? Is it a rural municipality or urban municipality or ward? Since the author recommended for scale up the intervention in their conclusions – it would have added value if the authors can provide the cost of intervention of this project.

� Page 6 – demand-side intervention – It is not clear whether the ‘Swstha Rupantaran’ sessions was organized separately for male or female? Was it a combination for both sexes? What about married and unmarried – being one the culturally sensitive topic it is important to describe how it was organized and what was reactions of participants to the sessions.

� Page 7 – Healthy visits to newlywed couples – Paper is not clearer on how the video was displayed, how long was the video?

� Page 7 – Pragati game – manuscript would be improved if the information on when the game was played, how many times it was played, whether it was played together with AGYW, husband, community influencers etc or organized separately to each group?

� Page 8 – Support to a health facility – not clear in the manuscript whether or not FP commodities were also supplied to the health facility as part of the supply-side intervention. If yes, what FP commodities were supplied.

� Methods:

� Page 9, Sampling frame: The sample size in the endline is inconsistent with the abstract (565 VS 558). I am also concerned about the effective sample size for the analysis, particularly for the contraceptive (212 young married only) – the authors may want to reflect this on the limitation of the study and recommend a larger study before suggesting to scale-up of the intervention.

� It appeared that end line survey was conducted when there was an active intervention, this may bias the overall reporting. Adding an explanation about the approach the authors have taken to control this in the data collection and in analysis would improve the manuscript.

� Outcome variables – How authors have defined ‘correctly know about modern contraceptive method’? Also, the authors assessed knowledge about the place to obtain a method of FP (yes/no) – it is not clear how they measured it? For example, one participant may know the place to obtain ‘Oral Pills’ and ‘Male Condom’ but not an IUD, so how is this participant categorized as a dichotomous variable?

� Explanatorily variables: Few important explanatory variables such as desire for additional children, sex of living children, women decision-making/autonomy power, currently living with husband or not, and exposure to media are not included in the analysis. Including these important variables in the analysis would improve the paper significantly. Furthermore – it is not clear in the paper how the authors have created a ‘wealth’ variable.

� Data collection: One of the major limitations of this study is the high loss to endline interviews and no mention of attrition analysis. What were the main reasons for the loss to follow up (in endline interviews)? Adding analysis about lost to follow-up participants (from the baseline data) would improve the paper. It is also not clear whether or not these were repeated measurements (same respondents interviewed twice??). Was the data collection paper-based? How long was the interviews?

� Data analysis: Descriptive analysis is used – if this is a repeated measurement why other statistical methods such as the general linear model for repeated measurement was not used? Justification/rationale of selection of variables, and use of higher-level statistical methods to control the effect of explanatory variables on the outcomes variables would really improve the results and conclusions of this manuscript. This may enhance the author’s confidence in reporting the impacts of the intervention on increasing knowledge and use of contraceptives.

� Results: Categorization in ethnicity in Table 1 and Table 3 do not match. Making consistency in these two Tables would improve the paper.

� Table 3 – There is a reduction in FP use from baseline to endline among a few groups, for example, in Jajarkot district (38% VS 30%) and among Brahmin/Chhetri ethnicity (35% VS 32%) – I would like to know the likely reason for this? Is it because of data quality?

� Discussion and conclusions: The discussion and conclusion section needs to be revised based on how the authors would address my comments on data analysis. Based on the current analysis, I am not fully convinced by the authors’ claim of their intervention has improved knowledge and use of modern contraceptives. The improvement observed between baseline and end-line could be a natural change over time. Therefore, I suggest either improving the data analysis or recognizing these important limitations and revising the discussion and conclusion section of the manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer #2: The work is well written with good english.

My comments are attached with track change and this paper should be published if only the authors amend those important comments forwarded in the result and conclusion sections! Otherwise, the discrepancies and interpretation of some of the data highlighted in the result sections will affect the acceptance of this paper for publication in this journal.

**********

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

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: FP manuscript.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 9;18(6):e0286705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286705.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Sep 2022

Aug 31, 2022

Dear Editors-in-Chief

PLOS ONE

Thank you very much for your email with the decision dated July 15, 2022. We found that reviewers' and editor feedbacks were insightful. We have addressed both reviewers’ comments point by point. We have uploaded the revised manuscript showing track changes so that you can see all revisions and modifications we have made. We believe that our revisions will satisfy you and both reviewers. We have included a clean copy and track change copy of the revised manuscript.

Thank you for considering this manuscript for publication.

Sincerely,

Dipendra Singh Thakuri

On behalf of all co-authors

Reviewer #1:

♣ Abstract: Some information on sample size and measurement is not consistent and clear. For example, the sample size in the endline survey is reported 565 in the abstract but in the sampling frame section (page 10) it is reported 558. Similarly, in the abstract, the knowledge of FP method is mentioned but in the method section (under outcome variable, page 10) – the ‘correct knowledge of the FP method’ is mentioned. The author never defines ‘correctly knowledge of FP methods’ in the manuscript. The abstract needs to be revised based on what revisions the authors would like to make based on my comments on the method section below.

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. The actual sample size in the endline was 565. The 558 was a typo. We have corrected it in the revised manuscript (page 10). In terms of correct knowledge of the FP methods, we have revised this (page 11). Correctly knowing about modern contraceptive methods would mean the respondents had heard about different types of modern contraceptive methods such as Condom (yes/no), Injectables (yes/no), Pill (yes/no), Female sterilization (yes/no), Male sterilization (yes/no), Implants (yes/no), IUCD (yes/no), LAM (yes/no), Emergency contraceptive (yes/no), Standard days Method (yes/no).

♣ Background: Page 3, third para – the author said that the prevalence rate of modern FP methods among currently married women in Nepal noticeably increased from 26% in 1996 to 43% in 2016 which is not really true. In fact, the contraceptive prevalence rate among married women has been stagnant at 43% since 2006 in Nepal.

Authors response: Thank you for your comment. We agree with you that the contraceptive prevalence rate has been stagnant since 2006. We have rephrased the statement in the introduction section as suggested (Page 3).

♣ Page 4, last para – Authors claim that there is a limited body of knowledge about the impact of integrated demand and supply-side intervention in improving FP use, maternal health etc in Nepal – this is not true. These pieces of evidence are available for women of reproductive ages but not for adolescent and young women.

Authors response: Thank you so much for your important comment. Agreeing with your comments, we have revised the introduction section (page 5) to reflect this and incorporated the relevant papers as references

♣ Page 5 – Program Intervention – author said that the project is implemented in 9 local government areas of four districts – what does ‘local government areas’ mean? Is it a rural municipality or urban municipality or ward? Since the author recommended for scale up the intervention in their conclusions – it would have added value if the authors can provide the cost of intervention of this project.

Authors response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have added details about local government in the revised manuscript (page 9).

In terms of the cost of the intervention, we recognise the value of costing studies (Rosen et al., 2019) and agree that it would add value to the case for scaling up the intervention. However, since a costing study was not conducted for Healthy Transitions, we could not provide such costing information. Future cost analyses would enhance discussions on scalability of the intervention, and we have added this as a recommendation in the conclusion section (page 21) of the revised manuscript.

♣ Page 6 – demand-side intervention – It is not clear whether the ‘Swstha Rupantaran’ sessions was organized separately for male or female? Was it a combination for both sexes? What about married and unmarried – being one the culturally sensitive topic it is important to describe how it was organized and what was reactions of participants to the sessions.

Authors response: Thank you so much for your comment. Our “Swastha Rupantaran” sessions were organised only for adolescent girls and young women groups and these sessions were carried out separately for married and unmarried groups. We have added details in the manuscript (page 6).

♣ Page 7 – Healthy visits to newlywed couples – Paper is not clearer on how the video was displayed, how long was the video?

Authors response: Thank you for your query about home visits. We have added the details in the description of the interventions section (page 7 in the revised manuscript. “These videos were used during home visits and displayed among newlywed couples’, husbands, and in-laws at their homes”. There were six videos each averaging 6.5 min duration.

♣ Page 7 – Pragati game – manuscript would be improved if the information on when the game was played, how many times it was played, whether it was played together with AGYW, husband, community influencers etc or organized separately to each group?

Authors response: Thank you so much for your valuable suggestion. We have added a description in the revised manuscript (page 7-8). “The Pragati game was played among different target beneficiaries and stakeholders such as AGYW in group sessions and school settings, husbands, and community influencers in the community setting. The Pragati game was played separately among different groups.”

♣ Page 8 – Support to a health facility – not clear in the manuscript whether or not FP commodities were also supplied to the health facility as part of the supply-side intervention. If yes, what FP commodities were supplied.

Authors response: Thank you so much for your important comment. We did not supply health facilities with FP commodities. Instead, we provided essential FP-related equipment such as examination tables, LARC insertion and removal sets, autoclave sets, surgical drum and FP counseling kits etc. We have clarified this in the revised manuscript (page 8-9).

♣ Methods:

♣ Page 9, Sampling frame: The sample size in the endline is inconsistent with the abstract (565 VS 558).

Authors response: Thank you for noting this discrepancy. The 558 was a typo, which we have corrected.

I am also concerned about the effective sample size for the analysis, particularly for the contraceptive (212 young married only) – the authors may want to reflect this on the limitation of the study and recommend a larger study before suggesting to scale-up of the intervention

Authors response: Thank you so much for your insightful suggestion. The overall sample size (786) was calculated based on the population of program participants and was proportionally representative of the various demographics used in the study. Given that FP use was only among married adolescent girls and young women, however, we only used that sub-sample (290 at baseline and 212 at endline) for the purposes of this analysis. The details have been included in the revised manuscript (page 10).

♣ It appeared that end line survey was conducted when there was an active intervention, this may bias the overall reporting. Adding an explanation about the approach the authors have taken to control this in the data collection and in analysis would improve the manuscript.

Authors response: Thank you so much for your important comment and suggestions. The overall project interventions were divided into two cohorts run sequentially from 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. While community activities occurred for each cohort, the findings for this study were based on a sample of participants from the first cohort only and participants were engaged at the end of their group activities. Similarly, household members engaged in home visits and partner activities were not repeated across cohorts. Another control measure was to have an external and reputable consulting firm conduct the data collection and analysis for this study. We have added an explanation of these measures to avoid bias and limit spillover in the revised manuscript (page 12).

♣ Outcome variables – How authors have defined ‘correctly know about modern contraceptive method’? Also, the authors assessed knowledge about the place to obtain a method of FP (yes/no) – it is not clear how they measured it? For example, one participant may know the place to obtain ‘Oral Pills’ and ‘Male Condom’ but not an IUD, so how is this participant categorized as a dichotomous variable?

Authors response: Thank you so much for your important comment. Knowledge of FP was measured by whether respondents had heard about modern contraceptive methods such as Condom (yes/no), Injectables (yes/no), Pill (yes/no), Female sterilization (yes/no), Male sterilization (yes/no), Implants (yes/no), IUCD (yes/no), LAM (yes/no), Emergency contraceptive (yes/no), Standard days methods(yes/no).

In terms of a place to obtain FP method FP (yes/no), the question (“Do you know of a place where you can obtain a method of family planning”) addressed FP methods in general, not individual methods uniquely.

♣ Explanatorily variables: Few important explanatory variables such as desire for additional children, sex of living children, women decision-making/autonomy power, currently living with husband or not, and exposure to media are not included in the analysis. Including these important variables in the analysis would improve the paper significantly. Furthermore – it is not clear in the paper how the authors have created a ‘wealth’ variable.

Authors response: Thank you for your insightful comments. Unfortunately, we did not capture information about those explanatory variables so cannot report on any mediating effects. We have mentioned this in our limitations (page 20-21).

In terms of wealth quintile, we created a wealth score for each individual using principal component analysis (PCA). We ranked each respondent by their assigned scores and divided them into the wealth categories: women with the lowest, middle, and highest socioeconomic status. We have added details in the revised manuscript (page 11-12).

♣ Data collection: One of the major limitations of this study is the high loss to endline interviews and no mention of attrition analysis. What were the main reasons for the loss to follow up (in endline interviews)? Adding analysis about lost to follow-up participants (from the baseline data) would improve the paper.

Authors response: Thank you so much for your important comment. The attrition seen from baseline to endline is due to adolescent girls’ migration within Nepal for further schooling and some married adolescent girls accompanying their husbands as they migrate to India for seasonal work. Acknowledging the role of migration in our program areas, we have done attrition analysis of participants who were lost to follow up. Finding of attrition analysis has been included in revised manuscript (page 15). We have added some details in the limitation.

It is also not clear whether or not these were repeated measurements (same respondents interviewed twice??). Was the data collection paper-based? How long was the interviews?

Authors response: Thank you for your questions. These were repeated measurements in which the same respondents were interviewed at baseline and endline. Data collection involved using a digital app, data was collected through Survey Solutions, a software allowing it to be administered using mobile phones, allowing for automated skip patterns, and eliminating the need for data entry from paper surveys. Each interview lasted for 30-45min. We have added details in the revised manuscript (page 12).

♣ Data analysis: Descriptive analysis is used – if this is a repeated measurement why other statistical methods such as the general linear model for repeated measurement was not used? Justification/rationale of selection of variables, and use of higher-level statistical methods to control the effect of explanatory variables on the outcomes variables would really improve the results and conclusions of this manuscript. This may enhance the author’s confidence in reporting the impacts of the intervention on increasing knowledge and use of contraceptives.

Authors response: Thank you so much for this important comment which we expected from the reviewers. Actually, we thought about this and ran the logistic regression model. However, we found no statistically significant result in that model. Thus, we have not included that table in the result section and made our interpretation based on the result of cross tabulation.

♣ Results: Categorization in ethnicity in Table 1 and Table 3 do not match. Making consistency in these two Tables would improve the paper.

Authors response: Thank you so much for your suggestion, we have revised it.

♣ Table 3 – There is a reduction in FP use from baseline to endline among a few groups, for example, in Jajarkot district (38% VS 30%) and among Brahmin/Chhetri ethnicity (35% VS 32%) – I would like to know the likely reason for this? Is it because of data quality?

Authors response: Thank you so much for your comment. We rechecked the data quality and reran our analysis for Jajarkot and Brahmin/Chhetri ethnicity and results are the same. So, the data quality is fine. This is the crude observation that we have reported. The differences may be due to that reason.

♣ Discussion and conclusions: The discussion and conclusion section need to be revised based on how the authors would address my comments on data analysis. Based on the current analysis, I am not fully convinced by the authors’ claim of their intervention has improved knowledge and use of modern contraceptives. The improvement observed between baseline and end-line could be a natural change over time. Therefore, I suggest either improving the data analysis or recognizing these important limitations and revising the discussion and conclusion section of the manuscript accordingly.

Authors response: Thank you so much for your important suggestions. We have revised the discussion and conclusion section considering the limitations.

Reviewer #2:

Why is this big nonresponse rate of almost 30%? Please say something on that too!

Authors response: Thank you so much for your important comment. The attrition seen from baseline to endline is due to adolescent girls’ migration within Nepal for further schooling and some married adolescent girls accompanying their husbands as they migrate to India for seasonal work.

Does this mean it was also lower than the national use in 2016 (i.e. 43% in 2016) and why? Your result showing 33% is still lower than the current progress seen in 2016? How does that happen? This will put your findings not to be trustworthy or put its validity at stake?

Authors response: Thank you for your comment. The 43% CPR reported in NDHS 2016 is for married women of reproductive age (15-49 years). However, the CPR reported in this study is for adolescents and young women so, it is low.

Did you try to evaluate the status of unwanted pregnancies and related morbidities and mortalities in the intervention group? How significant was that when compared with your baseline records? Otherwise concluding with this statement will not be possible. Always recommendations should arise from your direct findings!

Authors response: Thank you so much for your comment. We have not evaluated the status of unwanted pregnancies and other related morbidities and mortalities. We have revised the recommendation as per your suggestions.

Figure should be put according to the journal’s requirement. It will not be easy to also review the data without this figure too. There is no Figure 1 and 2? They should also be shown!

Authors response: Thank you for your suggestion. For the journal requirement, figures were added to a separate file in the manuscript.

Why is this necessary? Is there any difference in lifestyle, culture, language and similar other variables among these ethnic groups? What influence would it bring on the results you would expect? If no difference, we don’t need it!

Authors response: Thank you so much for your insightful comments. Yes, there are differences among these ethnic groups. There is a variation in access and use of FP services. Some of the past studies that have reported inequalities in the use of FP among different caste groups.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163397/

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/12/3/e054369.full.pdf

https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol25/27/25-27.pdf

Summary of the key finding from the cited paper:

Compared to Brahmins/Chhetris, Newars were nearly twice as likely (AOR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.4–2.7) to use a modern method while Muslims and Terai Madhesi other castes were least likely.

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163397/

Janajati women were significantly (AOR=2.08, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.71) more likely to use modern contraception compared with Brahmin/Chhetri women.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/12/3/e054369.full.pdf

Does this mean those who were not in the baseline are included in the end line? How did you accommodate the 1% difference among these two groups? Where do they come from?

Authors response: Thank you for your important comment. These percentage are calculated based on the total sample (N=786, n=440, (56%)) in baseline and (N=565, n=320 (58%)) in endline. It means the dropout rate of Brahmin/Chhetri was low in endline and which was high among other ethnic groups. We have added further details in the revised manuscript.

How significant is this progress?

Authors response: Thank you so much for your comment. It was highly significant (p<0.001). We have added this in the revised manuscript.

Here you are showing the difference is significant too. I don’t think if this is true!! I don’t think the difference is significant here too!

Authors response: Thank you so much for your insightful comment. We have rechecked the raw data and we found that there were some data errors in the table which we have now reviewed and corrected in table 3.

If the number of individuals who know about all family planning methods is 11%, how come those who know about modern planning become 10%. It was the subset of the previous variable and to the minimum should be either equal or greater than those who know all family planning methods. How did you put the questions for these two variables in your data collection tool?

Authors response: Thank you so much for your important comment. We have reviewed and corrected it in the revised manuscript. Please see table 3.

What is your justification for that? It could be a confounder, otherwise please take this variable out. (Janajati high differences in FP use)

Authors response: Thank you so much for your comments. Our finding is consistent with past study in Nepal which reported that Janajati adolescents and young women have higher use of FP than other caste. Some examples of the past studies.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/12/3/e054369.full.pdf

https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/TUJ/article/view/24704/20817

Summary of the key finding from the cited paper:

Janajati adolescents’ girls and young women were two times more likely (AOR=2.08, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.71) to use modern contraception compared with Brahmin/Chettri

How did you justify this reduction even though it may not be statistically significant? Jajarkot?

Authors response: Thank you for your important comment. We have rechecked the data quality. We again ran our analysis for Jajarkot, and results are the same. So, the data quality is fine. This is the crude observation that we have reported. The differences may be due to that reason.

This data tells the intervention didn’t work! What was your expectation in their indicators before you state the intervention then? Pairty?

Authors response: Thank you for your important comments. We have mentioned details about this finding in the discussion section. The young women having two or more children had increased their use of FP methods compared to the women with no children. “This could be because the women with two or more children may have already attained their desired number of children and hence were encouraged to use contraceptives to limit their childbirth after being exposed to the Healthy Transition’s interventions”.

This is still a confounder! Being Dalit will never make one to have a lower wealth status, but this can be measured with a simple wealth index measurement without even considering their ethnicities. Always whenever you consider ethnicity you have to make sure being in a specific ethnic group should have a natural contribution eg. Genetic, etc, for the outcome you are measuring. If phenotypic or artificial modified, however, you should avoid considering ethnicity!

Authors response: Thank you for your comment. Yes, there are differences between these ethnic groups. There is variation in access and use of FP services. Some of the previous studies that have reported inequalities in the use of FP among different caste groups.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163397/

https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol25/27/25-27.pdf

https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/TUJ/article/view/24704/20817

Summary of the key findings from cited paper:

Compared to Brahmins/Chhetris, Newars were nearly twice as likely (AOR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.4–2.7) to use a modern method while Muslims and Terai Madhesi other castes were least likely.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163397/

This outcome however is not measured properly. You only measured their knowledge and use of FP methods. How about its impact on the number of births per family? The parity gaps within births? How about the number of unwanted pregnancies happened before and after intervention? How about the number of abortions because of that? Maternal deaths before and after intervention due to unwanted pregnancies or lack of knowledge of appropriate FP services? The authors should consider all these variables to conclude that the intervention is effective and be recommended at a policy level in the future! Please also use data presentation techniques like graphs showing the significance in the progress between the indicated variables.

Authors response: Thank you so much for your insightful comments. In this study, we have only tried to measure the FP outcome only. We have not measured the number of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and maternal deaths. In terms of data presentation techniques, we tried to use different graphs but since we had several variables in our data set so couldn’t fit them in the bar graph and pie chart, hence we reported our findings in the table only.

We would like to thank the editor and both the reviewers for their insightful comments and feedback. Thank you so much for inviting us to revision of this manuscript.

Dipendra Singh Thakuri, on behalf of all co-authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Gbenga Olorunfemi

24 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-10311R1Improving family planning uptake among adolescents and young women in Western Nepal: Learning from the implementation of  Healthy Transition ProjectPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thakuri,

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 10 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,

Gbenga Olorunfemi, MBBS,MSC,FMCOG,FWASC

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

[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 #2: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: No

**********

5. 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 #2: 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 #2: The paper addresses all the objectives well. The variation in the number of participants at the baseline and endline survey is not well indicated, what happened to those missing individuals. The inclusion and exclusion criteria is not well addressed too.

**********

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.

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 #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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE_Review_FP manuscript_ Track Change_30_12_2022.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 9;18(6):e0286705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286705.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Feb 2023

Feb 14, 2023

Dear Editors-in-Chief

PLOS ONE

Thank you very much for your email with the decision dated Jan 24, 2023. We found that reviewers' and editor feedbacks were insightful. We have addressed reviewers’ comments point by point. We have uploaded the revised manuscript showing track changes so that you can see all revisions and modifications we have made. We believe that our revisions will satisfy you and both reviewers. We have included a clean copy and track change copy of the revised manuscript.

Thank you for considering this manuscript for publication.

Sincerely,

Dipendra Singh Thakuri

On behalf of all co-authors

Reviewer #2:

The title should be modified as follows: “Implementation of the Health Transition Project has improved family planning uptake among adolescents and young women in Western Nepal: a pre-and post-intervention study.”

Authors response: Thank you so much for important suggestions/inputs. We have modified the title incorporating your suggestions. The modified title is “Effect of Healthy Transitions intervention in improving family planning uptake among adolescents and young women in Western Nepal: a pre-and post-intervention study”.

What happen to the rest of the participants who were involved at the beginning of the intervention. From 786-565 girls, why?

Authors response: Thank you for your insightful comment. Rest of the participants (221 AGYW) who involved in the baseline were lost to follow up. The losses observed between baseline and endline were due to adolescent girls pursuing higher secondary education, some married adolescent girls moved to India with their husbands for seasonal labor work and remaining were not surveyed because of their inconsistent participation in the project. And these losses were random.

Where is the figure??

Authors response: Thank you for your query. As per the journal guideline, the figure supposed to be uploaded as separate file, so it is uploaded as separate file and not included in the main manuscript.

No abbreviation in subtitles or titles.

Authors response: Thank you for important suggestion. We have removed abbreviations from subtitle and titles as suggested.

Also decode them when you use them the first time.

Authors response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have revised it as suggested.

Not clear or needs some modification.

Authors response: Thank you so much for your important comment. We have rephrased it as suggested.

One and half page would be enough

Authors response: Thank you so much for your feedback.

??? Difference

Authors response: Thank you for your query. The difference is from baseline to endline.

Why did you have to wait 12 months? Six months would be enough, or it would be nice to see the sixth month record as well as the twelfth month to also show how the trend goes?

Authors response: Thank you for your important inquiry. The Healthy Transition curriculum consisted of a total of 24 sessions, which were conducted among AGYW on a fortnightly basis, so it took one year to cover the entire package of Healthy Transition, so we had to wait 12 months to complete the full intervention package.

The similarities in the proportions at each category at the baseline and endline survey brings a question of trustworthiness of the data.

Authors response: Thank you so much for comment. We followed the same groups of participants from baseline to endline, and a similar proportion of each category may have been lost, so there may not have been many differences between baseline and endline in each category.

We would like to thank the editor and both the reviewers for their insightful comments and feedback. Thank you so much for inviting us to revision of this manuscript.

Dipendra Singh Thakuri, on behalf of all co-authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Gbenga Olorunfemi

20 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-10311R2Effect of Healthy Transitions intervention in improving family planning uptake among adolescents and young women in Western Nepal: a pre-and post-intervention studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thakuri,

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.

==============================We advise that authors should get an experienced biostatistician to review the data analysis especially Tables 3 and Table 4. For comparison of categorical variable of baseline and endline, a Pearson's Chi-square may not be appropriate because there is a violation of the assumption of "independent" groups. A McNamar test appears to be more appropriate while paired ttest is more appropriate for a continuous variable that is normally distributed.  In Table 3 frequencies were stated without percentages.  In the column for "Diff", some places had frequencies. While others had percentages. It makes the Table quite difficult to understand. Authors should revise this.The calculation of absolute difference and corresponding P-value was not stated in the statistical analysis section. Authors should explain fully what statistical analysis that was done (The statistical steps should be apparent/ more explicit). I reckon that the P-value obtained from a Chi-square does not apply to absolute difference of categorical values and/or frequencies as depicted and interpreted in the result. Authors should get a biostatistician to review the data analysis and result presentation so that valid conclusion can be obtained from the data/result.Table 4. Title. Write "FP" in full.Table 4 also requires overhaul of the statistical analysis. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 04 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,

Gbenga Olorunfemi, MBBS,MSC,FMCOG,FWASC

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

[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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: 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 #2: yes all the comments were incorporated according to the reviews made. I expect some formating on the manuscript though. It is my expectation PLOS ONE would let the authors to follow such guidelines.

**********

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.

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 #2: Yes: Worku N.

**********

[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 One. 2023 Jun 9;18(6):e0286705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286705.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


6 May 2023

April 3, 2023

Dear Editors-in-Chief

PLOS ONE

Thank you very much for your email with the decision dated March 21, 2023. We found that editor feedbacks were insightful. We have addressed editor comments point by point. We have uploaded the revised manuscript showing track changes so that you can see all revisions and modifications we have made. We believe that our revisions will satisfy you. We have included a clean copy and track change copy of the revised manuscript.

Thank you for considering this manuscript for publication.

Sincerely,

Dipendra Singh Thakuri

On behalf of all co-authors

Editor comments:

We advise that authors should get an experienced biostatistician to review the data analysis especially Tables 3 and Table 4. For comparison of categorical variable of baseline and endline, a Pearson's Chi-square may not be appropriate because there is a violation of the assumption of "independent" groups. A McNamar test appears to be more appropriate while paired t-test is more appropriate for a continuous variable that is normally distributed.

Author’s response: Thank you so much for your insightful comment. We have consulted with a biostatistician to review the data analysis. Based on the suggestions, we did a re-analysis of Table 3 and Table 4 using the McNamar test and reported the findings in the revised manuscript.

In Table 3 frequencies were stated without percentages. In the column for "Diff", some places had frequencies. While others had percentages. It makes the Table quite difficult to understand. Authors should revise this.

Author’s response: Thank you so much for your suggestions. We have reviewed and revised it as per the suggestions.

The calculation of absolute difference and corresponding P-value was not stated in the statistical analysis section. Authors should explain fully what statistical analysis that was done (The statistical steps should be apparent/ more explicit). I reckon that the P-value obtained from a Chi-square does not apply to absolute difference of categorical values and/or frequencies as depicted and interpreted in the result. Authors should get a biostatistician to review the data analysis and result presentation so that valid conclusion can be obtained from the data/result.

Author’s response: Thank you for your important comments. We have added details about statistical analysis in the statistical analysis section of the revised manuscript. In terms of data analysis, we consulted with the biostatistician and reran the analysis of the data using appropriate statistical test.

Table 4. Title. Write "FP" in full.

Table 4 also requires overhaul of the statistical analysis.

Author’s response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have reviewed and revised it as per your suggestions.

We would like to thank the editor and both the reviewers for their insightful comments and feedback. Thank you so much for inviting us to revision of this manuscript.

Dipendra Singh Thakuri, on behalf of all co-authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Gbenga Olorunfemi

23 May 2023

Effect of Healthy Transitions intervention in improving family planning uptake among adolescents and young women in Western Nepal: a pre-and post-intervention study

PONE-D-22-10311R3

Dear Dr. Thakuri,

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,

Gbenga Olorunfemi, MBBS,MSC,FMCOG,FWASC

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Gbenga Olorunfemi

2 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-10311R3

Effect of Healthy Transitions intervention in improving family planning uptake among adolescents and young women in Western Nepal: a pre-and post-intervention study

Dear Dr. Thakuri:

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. Gbenga Olorunfemi

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 Data

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: FP manuscript.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE_Review_FP manuscript_ Track Change_30_12_2022.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES