Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Nov 16;18(11):e0294536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294536

Experiences of mothers and health workers with MomCare and SafeCare bundles in Kenya and Tanzania: A qualitative evaluation

Jonathan Izudi 1,2,*, Henry Odero Owoko 1, Moussa Bagayoko 1, Damazo Kadengye 1,3
Editor: Azmeraw Ambachew Kebede4
PMCID: PMC10653531  PMID: 37972017

Abstract

Between 2019 and 2022, the digital dividend project (DDP), a technology-based intervention that combined care (MomCare) and quality improvement (SafeCare) bundles to empower mothers to access quality care during pregnancy, labor, and delivery, and postnatally, was implemented in Kenya and Tanzania aiming to improve maternal and newborn health outcomes. We describe the experiences of the mothers in accessing and utilizing health services under the bundles, and the experiences of the health workers in providing the services. Between November and December 2022, we conducted a qualitative evaluation across health facilities in Kenya and Tanzania. We held Interviews with mothers (pregnant and postpartum women who had benefited from the care bundles) and health workers (physicians, nurses, and midwives who provided the care bundles, including health facility In-Charges) at the antenatal care (ANC), skilled birth attendance (SBA), and postnatal care (PNC) service delivery points. We performed content analysis. Findings are reported using themes and quotes from the participants. We included 127 mothers (Kenya = 76, Tanzania = 51) and 119 health workers. Findings revealed that among mothers, the care bundles eased access to health services, ensured easy access and optimal ANC use, provision of respectful care, removed financial constraints, and led to the receipt of sufficient health education. Health workers reported that the care bundles offered them a new opportunity to provide quality maternal and newborn care and to adhere to the standard of care besides experiencing a positive and fulfilling practice. Health systems improvements included prompt emergency response and continual care, infrastructural developments, medical supplies and logistics, staffing, and increased documentation. Overall, the care bundles led to the strengthening of the healthcare system (staffing, service delivery, financing, supplies/logistics, and information management) in order to deliver quality maternal and child health services. The bundles should be replicated in settings with similar maternal and child health challenges.

Introduction

Limited access to and non-use of maternal and child health services contribute to significant maternal and newborn morbidity and mortality. Globally, an estimated 810 women die daily from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, with 99% of the deaths being in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where access to quality maternal and child health services is limited [1]. Maternal deaths are a result of direct causes—excessive blood loss, infection, high blood pressure, unsafe abortion, and obstructed labor [1] and indirect causes—anemia, malaria, tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and heart diseases among others [2]. These causes are all preventable and treatable provided access to quality antenatal care (ANC), skilled birth attendance (SBA), and postnatal care (PNC) are guaranteed. The risk of under-five mortality in SSA is 15 times higher than in developed regions despite a declining global trend [3], with the leading causes as preterm delivery, pneumonia, birth asphyxia, diarrhea and malaria, and malnutrition among others. These causes are equally preventable and treatable provided access to quality child health services is assured.

Both Kenya and Tanzania have worse maternal and newborn outcomes. The 2022 Demographic and Health Survey data placed the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) in Kenya at 342 deaths per 100,000 live births, and in Tanzania at 524 deaths per 100,000 live births. To achieve the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target of reducing MMR to less than 70 deaths per 100,000 live births and neonatal mortality to below 12 deaths per 1,000 live births, context-specific interventions are urgently needed. One such intervention entails using digital technologies in health. For example, mobile phone technologies (sometimes called telehealth, telemedicine, e-health, or mhealth) have recently emerged as promising tools to improve access and use of maternal and child health services, with the ultimate goal being better maternal and child health outcomes [4]. The benefits of digital technologies include removing barriers to accessing maternal health services by increasing economic and geographic convenience [5]; promoting health in general but also increasing access to health education, health management, and health research; and, increasing access to health care [6], with the added benefits of increased knowledge as information about pregnancy and newborn health become readily available [7]. Other benefits include increasing the frequency of ANC visits, timing, and quality of services [810]. Telemedicine and phone-based referral networks are recommended solutions for tackling the decline in PNC service availability and utilization during and after the recent COVID-19 lockdown [11].

According to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of data from low and lower-middle-income countries, mHealth increases SBA by more than twofold (pooled odds ratio [OR] 2.21, 95% CI 1.61–2.89), PNC use by nearly more than four-fold (pooled OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.90–8.97), and exclusive breastfeeding by nearly 2.3-fold (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.46–3.46) [12]. Another systematic review and meta-analysis in low- and middle-income countries found that text messaging and mobile phone use improved breastfeeding within the first hour of life (pooled OR 2.01, 95% CI.27-2.75), as well as exclusive breastfeeding at 3–4 months (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.26–2.50) and 6 months (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.46–3.68) [13].

By supplementing in-person visits with mobile applications, mental health outcomes during pregnancy became comparable or even better, and the replacement of in-person visits with reduced prenatal care visits using telehealth for low-risk pregnancies led to similar clinical outcomes and higher patient satisfaction with care [14]. Recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that remote breastfeeding support using digital technologies significantly reduced the risk of exclusive breastfeeding cessation at 3 months by 25% [15].

In 2019, the MMR in Kenya was 362 deaths per 100,000 live births [16], and that in Tanzania was 578 deaths per 100,000 live births [17]. The 5-year neonatal mortality rate (NNMR) in Kenya was 22 per 1,000 live births and the infant mortality rate (IMR) was 39 per 1,000 live births [18]. In Tanzania, the NNMR was 25 deaths per 1,000 births and the IMR was 43 deaths per 1,000 births [19]. These rates are among the highest in SSA. One of the reasons for the poor maternal and child health outcomes is a lack of adequate access to quality health services in certain regions within and between the countries. In Kenya, the health facilities in Kisumu and Kakamega counties had poor maternal and child health outcomes while in Tanzania, it was the health facilities in the Manyara and Kilimanjaro regions. Prior to the digital intervention, in Kenya, the proportion of ANC attendance in Kakamega was 96.4% and that in Kisumu was 98.5%, with 47.0% SBA in Kakamega and 69.5% in Kisumu, and PNC checkup in the first two days after birth at 34.6% in the western region of Kakamega and 61.0% in the Nyanza region of Kisumu [20]. Tanzania’s average four or more ANC visits was 51%, while it was rather high in the Manyara (98.2%) and Kilimanjaro (94.5%) regions. SBA was 47.5% in Manyara versus 95.5% in Kilimanjaro, but PNC checkup in the first two days after birth was significantly higher in Kilimanjaro than in Manyara (59.2% versus 26.5%, respectively) [21]. Therefore, a digital dividend project, a technology-based intervention that combined a care bundle (MomCare) and a quality improvement bundle (SafeCare), was started in both Kenya and Tanzania.

The aim was to increase access to quality maternal health services during pregnancy, labor and delivery, and postnatal periods, with the overall goal of improving maternal and newborn health outcomes. The project intended to achieve the outcomes through 1) contracting health workers to provide quality care for women; 2) assessing and improving the quality of care provided through SafeCare standards and tools; 3) monitoring health facilities for quality of care to ensure optimal pregnancy journey at the best cost; 4) providing women with the means to save or access subsidies including insurance and top-ups to pay for health services (the health wallet), and 5) rewarding health workers with bonuses in recognition for quality services that met all pre-agreed criteria for healthcare delivery. Despite the potential benefits of the care bundles, there is little known about the experiences of mothers and health workers with the bundles. Understanding these experiences is critical in order to inform the programming and implementation of the digital dividend project—recognizing the program failures and successes, determining the best approaches for addressing the failures, and taking full advantage of the successes in future programming. We, therefore, described the experiences of mothers in accessing and utilizing MomCare and SafeCare bundles during antenatal care, labor and delivery, and postnatal care. We also described the experiences of health workers in providing health services to mothers, both in Kenya and Tanzania between 2019 and 2022.

Description of MomCare and SafeCare bundles

Between 2019 and September 2022, a three-year digital dividend project was implemented in Tanzania and Kenya by PharmAccess Foundation International, with funding from the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF). The project combined care (MomCare) and quality improvement (SafeCare) bundles to empower women to access the care they trust throughout their pregnancy journey and the postnatal period. Women were enrolled in a subsidized health insurance program and check-in and all the clinic costs were paid using a mobile platform. The service included "nudges" to remind women regarding check-ups and rewards to improve commitment. At the end of the care journey, health workers are compensated financially for providing high-quality care. Also, health workers were financially rewarded for positive health outcomes at the end of the care journey thus directly incentivizing quality and ensuring patient-centered care. The care journey for a mother begins at no more than 26 weeks of gestation except for teenagers and women living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), who could be enrolled at any point during the journey. The enrolment ended at 20 weeks post-delivery, marking the 60th week of the care journey. Each step of the care journey was digitally tracked, and data were collected and analyzed to track and improve healthcare delivery.

SafeCare package is an internationally recognized standard-based quality improvement and recognition approach that has been operational since 2010 [22]. To improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the SafeCare process, a digital assessment tool was developed. With this tool, SafeCare provides each health facility with a SafeCare quality score on a scale of 1–5 whenever a mother uses a service followed by a discussion of an automated quality improvement plan on the same day. In addition, the tool has automatic cross-checks allowing a reduced need and time for manual assessment and reviews by supervisors.

Methods and materials

Study design and setting

This qualitative evaluation was conducted in the two East African countries of Kenya and Tanzania between November and December 2022. In Kenya, 16 health facilities in Kisumu and Kakamega counties were included while in Tanzania, 51 health facilities from the Manyara and Kilimanjaro regions were included. The disparity in the number of health facilities analyzed could be attributed to current health needs, increased demand for health services due to population density, and the desire to expand healthcare coverage, among other considerations. In both countries, the regions selected had high maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality based on the respective Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data. In Kenya, the regions had the worst maternal and child health indicators, with MMR at 495 deaths per 100,000 live births and IMR at 40 deaths per 1000 live births in Kakamega and 50 deaths per 1000 live births in Kisumu. In Tanzania, the nomadic nature of the communities limited the use of existing services due to financial and physical constraints. In both settings, data were collected among participants at the ANC, SBA, and PNC service delivery points.

Study population

We studied women aged 19–49 years who had benefited from MomCare and SafeCare bundles and health workers who provided care at the respective health facilities in Kenya and Tanzania. The women were purposively sampled based on the maximum variance sampling method, an approach that allowed equal representation of all women based on residence (rural versus urban), parity, insurance status, receipt of incentives, and level of education. The same sampling approach was applied to health workers (physicians, nurses, and midwives), health facility level, and years of experience (<5 versus ≥5 years).

At the managerial and leadership levels, we interviewed the health facility In-Charges, and for each of the categories of health workers, a minimum of five were included.

Data collection

Data were collected through in-depth interviews (IDI) with mothers and health workers, and a focused group discussion (FGD) with mothers. Interviews were conducted in a noiseless place within the health facility premises, Monday to Friday, 9.00 am to 5.00 pm, lasting 30–45 minutes on average. The data collection focused on the experiences of mothers as beneficiaries of MomCare SafeCare bundles, and the health workers’ experiences in providing maternal and child health services under the bundles. IDIs were conducted in the local language “Kiswahili” with the women and in the English language with health workers. FGDs were conducted by two people, a moderator and a note-taker. Each group comprised 8–12 women with comparable age and parity.

Quality control measures

Research assistants had ≥3 years of qualitative research experience and were drawn from the study area to ensure a better understanding of the local context and to ease the data collection. All research assistants trained in the health sciences discipline: nursing, clinical medicine, community health, and health nutrition. They received a 5-day training on the evaluation design, data collection process, and responsible conduct of research. Research assistants were organized into teams, each comprised of five people with one as the Team Leader. The Team Leader tracked the progress of the teams daily and provided technical assistance to the teams but with the support of the evaluation team. All data collection tools were pre-tested at a distant health facility not included in the evaluation. The feedback from pre-testing the tools was used to improve the implementation of the evaluation.

Statistical issues

Sample size estimation

No sample size was calculated but the number of people interviewed depended on a priori sample size deemed sufficient to achieve saturation, a point at which no new information emerges despite additional data collection as reported in previous qualitative studies [2325]. Our a priori sample size estimate was 210 mothers (105 Kenya, 105 Tanzania) and approximately 150 health workers (75 Kenya, 75 Tanzania). We achieved saturation with 127 mothers (76 in Kenya, 51 in Tanzania) and 119 health workers.

Data analysis

Data were collected through voice recordings and thereafter transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were verified by replaying the voice recordings. Any disparities between the transcript and the voice recordings were corrected. Field notes were scrutinized and compared with the audio recordings and the transcripts were cross-referenced with the field notes. Areas of departure were highlighted and discussed between the analysts. Transcriptions were done by 10 research assistants with experience in qualitative research. Dedoose software version 9.0.54 was used for the data analysis. The analysis was conducted by two independent female analysts to prevent subjective bias, and each analyst had ≥10 years of experience in qualitative research. The analysts coded the transcripts independently and developed the initial codes that were later harmonized through discussions and consensus to form the final codebook. The initial codes were then applied to the rest of the transcripts. The analysis adopted a thematic content approach and followed three steps, namely data immersion, coding, and coding sort. In data immersion, the two analysts (SJ and MN) familiarized themselves with the transcripts by reading and re-reading the transcripts several times to identify common and important texts and patterns. They allowed impressions to shape the data interpretations in different and unpredictable directions. SJ and MN then flagged the relevant parts of the transcripts with suitable words or codes and in the final stages, both analysts categorized the codes into themes and sub-themes in the agreed codebook. Three senior reviewers (MB, DK, and JI), with experience in qualitative and mixed-methods research, verified all emergent codes, themes, and sub-themes including the final codebook to minimize subject bias. Along with the participant’s quotes, we presented the themes and sub-themes for the maternal and health worker experiences based on the World Health Organization’s health systems strengthening building blocks as the guiding framework [26]. The six building blocks are service delivery, health workforce, financing, infrastructure and commodities, health information systems, and leadership and governance.

Ethical consideration

We received ethical review and approval from the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) Internal Ethics Committee. The African Medical Research Foundation Ethical and Scientific Review Committee or AMREF-ESRC provided external review and ethical approval in Kenya (reference number: P911-2020). In Tanzania, the National Institute for Medical Research or NIMR (reference number: NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol.IX/3689) provided ethical clearance. All ethical approvals preceded the evaluation and all participants provided written informed consent.

Number tags and pseudo-names were used during data collection. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary and withdrawal from participation was permissible at any time.

Results

Characteristics of the participants

We summarize the participant’s characteristics in Table 1. Overall, 127 mothers were included in the study, mainly from Kenya (n = 76) but not Tanzania (n = 51). The majority of the participants were from a rural setting, with parity ≥2, secondary or more levels of education, and at the PNC clinic. Health workers were mainly in the nursing and midwifery professions combined (n = 105).

Table 1. Participant characteristics and distributions.

Variables Levels Kenya (n = 76) Tanzania (n = 51) Overall (n = 127)
Mothers
Residence Urban 21 18 39
Rural 44 29 73
Peri-urban 11 4 15
Parity 1 26 10 36
≥2 50 41 91
Level of education None 2 1 3
Primary 23 35 58
Secondary and over 51 15 66
Insurance status Yes 50 15 65
No 26 36 62
Point of service delivery ANC 22 25 47
SBA 21 4 25
PNC 33 22 55
Health workers Levels
Type of health worker (n = 119) Nurses and midwives 62 43 105
Physician 14 0 14

Main findings

We present the findings about the maternal and health worker experiences with the care bundles using the WHO’s health systems building blocks as the guiding framework (Table 2).

Table 2. Summary of main themes and sub-themes according to the WHO health systems building blocks.

WHO health systems building blocks (themes) A. Maternal experiences (sub-themes) B. Health worker experiences (sub-themes)
1. Service delivery a) Easy access and optimal ANC use.
b) Respectful care provision.
c) Good quality care during childbirth
d) Sufficient health education and good care
a) New opportunity to provide quality care
b) Adherence to the standard of care
c) Positive and fulfilling practice
d) Better emergency response and continual care
2. Health workforce Improved staffing
3. Financing No financial constraints to access care during the pregnancy journey
4. Infrastructure and commodities a) Improved laboratory testing
b) Dispensing of all prescribed medications
Improved infrastructure, medical supplies, and logistics
5. Health information systems   Increased documentation

We summarize the sub-themes based on five of the six domains of the WHO’s health systems building blocks namely, service delivery, health workforce, financing, infrastructure and commodities, and health information systems. We did not find a sub-theme for the leadership and governance domain.

A. Maternal experiences

Easy access and optimal ANC use

Participants reported that MomCare improved access to ANC services. Many of the participants described the ANC service as being of good quality. The participants were happy with the care bundle because it led to a successful pregnancy journey—the absence of complications during pregnancy.

What I can say about MomCare is that it is a nice program. It helps women who cannot even afford ANC, SBA, and PNC to have free services. There are some services MomCare also assists women with, sometimes they assist the women who require to undergo cesarean section (IDI, KM_42).

MomCare is a good thing because there was a time I came when sick and got admitted like today and discharge the following day and I used it. Unlike others (insurance), you will be told that if you use it once, then you cannot use the card again for the second time that is why I like MomCare (IDI, KM_12).

Upon reaching the 4th month, I used to come every week because the baby was not in a good position (IDI, TM_31).

The participants reported having received their first ANC visit between the first and the fifth month of pregnancy, with the majority indicating to have started their first ANC visits in the fourth and third months of pregnancy. A few participants reported a late first ANC visit, which was either in the sixth or seventh month of pregnancy.

I came when my pregnancy was four months. I came because I was suspecting that I am pregnant. I was sick, and I was vomiting a lot. I could not eat anything or even take water. I was just vomiting, and the vomit resembled that of malaria. That is why I went to the hospital then I was told that I did not have malaria, I was pregnant. I was then told to start attending the clinic and I didn’t waste time, the following week I started the clinic (IDI, KM_25).

Participants indicated attending all scheduled ANC visits, with many reporting four to five ANC visits and a few reporting two to three ANC visits due to late first ANC attendance. Participants with high-risk pregnancies attended as many as 7–9 ANC as they needed close monitoring.

It (ANC visits) used to be every month depending on the date that you were scheduled. Let’s say today is the 30th, you might be scheduled to come back next month on the 23rd. It depends. Every month you go (ANC visit) depending on the return date that you have been given (IDI, KM_61).

I came for the test, and they told me I am pregnant, then I went back and waited for four months before I started going to the clinic (meaning ANC clinic) many times, I think 5 to 6 times, yes. (IDI, TM_23).

Respectful care provision

The majority of the women in Kenya and Tanzania indicate that the health workers treated them with respect and dignity during their ANC visits, a factor that motivated them to continue with all planned ANC schedules. For example, the health workers showed a positive attitude towards pregnant women during ANC visits, provided them with non-judgmental care, and ensured a conducive environment and open communication including respect—constituting respectful care. Overall, there was a good relationship between the health workers and mothers.

Me, what motivates me is the way I am being treated when I come for services. If you ask people about their experiences some will tell you they gave birth in a certain hospital, they were abused by nurses or if they are late, they were quarreled at so I also came with that fear of being quarreled at when I am late because I come from far.

Sometimes, I fail to come. But, here, they are very gentle to us, and also, they have good services (FGD, Kenya, Mother).

What has motivated me in this facility is that they are just perfect. I have not been to a hospital like this, the place is clean, good services. They just serve you well, with respect. (IDI, TM_33).

Good quality care during childbirth

It was stated that the quality of health services at the Momcare and SafeCare health facilities was good so many of the participants chose to receive both ANC and SBA services at the same health facility. The participants recommended the MomCare and SafeCare health facilities to other mothers because of the good quality care, friendly health workers during labor and delivery, easy access to health services, and affordable care.

I started here at Mukumu because I delivered all my children here. I have been coming to clinics here and also, even though I come from far, I prefer here because it has these services such as constant checking of the babies breathing, heart beating, the mother’s condition, and even CS (cesarean section) if needed’ (IDI, KM_07).

When I arrived, the doctor put on gloves, he told me to lie on the bed, he amained my belly, after that, he was able to check if the cervix had dilated that is when he told me I must wait a bit, I had to do some exercise here. Together with one nurse we went around and came back.

During the day she ensured I ate well, that night we slept here (at the facility) with the nurses, the second day they woke me up at five o’clock we went for some exercise, and at six o’clock they examined me, they told me that my cervix had dilated, they encouraged me to take some tea and on that morning at six o’clock I delivered’ (IDI, TM_12).

Sufficient health education and good care

Complications during the PNC period are unpredictable both for the mother and the newborn so information on when to seek help is important. The participants indicated that the health workers provided them with sufficient health information during PNC visits to ensure their safety and that of the newborns.

After delivery, they continue to educate you on how to bathe the baby, then tell you to breastfeed the baby for six months’ (FGD, Kenya).

Immediately after delivery, they clean you and then they give you an injection to stop the bleeding and then you dress up and go to the resting bed. They observe you and if your status is okay, you are discharged the next day. You are told to go home. They give you a date to come for clinic and if the baby did not get the BCG vaccine and then there is the child’s medical card. You follow up on that.’ (IDI, TM_51)

No financial constraints during the pregnancy journey

The participants mentioned that the bundles eased access to ANC, SBA, and PNC as the services became free due to health insurance schemes like the Linda Mama and the National Health Insurance Fund. In addition, they reported that the health insurance scheme provided them with comprehensive cover for their pregnancy journey like receiving more than one free ultrasound scan and undertaking several laboratory tests and other procedures.

I did not make any payments in the hospital. You know a hospital like Port Florence is private. When you go there, you will pay a lot of money but, when you have that card or NHIF (National Health Insurance Fund) you do not pay for anything’ (IDI, KM_5).

Free treatment. You would come to antenatal care for free, delivery was free and also after delivery, they were giving us small gifts for free’ (IDI, KM_29).

We used to pay for an ultrasound even if you go to a bigger hospital but now if you wanted an ultrasound you go to the clinic unit, they sign for you and get checked for free so we benefited in many things so I would like to request they should improve for us even more’ (FGD, TM_52).

Improved laboratory testing

Participants said the health workers performed several tests on them to check if they were at risk for complications during their pregnancy or delivery. Notable tests performed included those for HIV, COVID-19, syphilis, hepatitis, and high blood sugar levels among others.

Before going to the maternity ward, you have to get tested for COVID-19, HIV and… I was offered many tests and from there, they checked the position of the baby first because mine was done through elective CS (cesarean section) then, I was taken for surgery’ (FGD, Kenya, Mother).

MomCare brought all the tests now we can test mothers with all the required tests such as the HB (hemoglobin), blood level, syphilis, HIV, urinalysis, and blood group. When the mother comes for the first time, she has to get tested until when she is in labor. You monitor her during the clinic visits until she delivers. So, we have to do the tests that I told you earlier like HB (hemoglobin), urinalysis, VDRL (Venereal Disease Research Laboratory testing for syphilis), blood group, and ultrasound, although ultrasound is the last test. (IDI, TH_24).

Dispensing of all prescribed medications

A sufficient supply of medications or drugs is an important component of a strong health system. Through the MomCare and SafeCare bundles, all required medications became available during PNC visits. The participants indicated that they received all needed medications during their PNC visits.

All medications will be given to this mother as also immunization services we offer. In case the child is aged between 0–14 weeks we treat this child and also process referrals if we have an emergency to refer the mother for further management, we just refer using our ambulance because it also helps the mother, it (MomCare) covers ambulance services.’ (IDI, KM_13).

The services we accessed during MomCare were much improved because we were well-considered in that, whenever the facility ran out of drugs, they were replenished on time. When I was not on the program (MomCare), I had to wait for the drugs to come from home by which time, I would have suffered because that took the time.’ (FGD, Tanzania).

B. Healthcare provider experiences

New opportunity to provide quality care

Health workers indicated that MomCare and SafeCare bundles presented them with a new opportunity to provide quality health services to mothers and their newborns. They felt motivated to provide all needed services as the bundles had incentives like training, regular support supervision, and follow-up by the implementing partners.

Basically, it (MomCare) has allowed us, the health workers, to provide quality health services to these women and babies through lab tests, ultrasound, and also medication like we have to give some medication in the process of labor and when they go home’ (IDI, KH_68)

It (meaning allowances) encourages a worker (meaning a health worker) who can do extra work, or extra hours to work. We have a few staff. So MomCare has truly helped to enlighten us.’ (IDI, TH_44).

Adherence to the standard of care

Health workers indicated that the SafeCare bundles allowed them to adhere to the standards of care at all times. For instance, they indicated that the program permitted additional laboratory tests such as urinalysis, rhesus factor, and examinations like ultrasound scanning to be performed whenever needed.

I will manage the post-delivery process in case of a complication. I’m sure MomCare will take care of that. Then also the clients are free; the one that uses MomCare just comes in free. Even if she’s sick, just comes in compared with the others’ (IDI, KH_9).

Because of MomCare, after a mother has delivered, she is now in PNC. We shall give her folate and vitamin K. You will also give her some eye ointment for the baby to prevent eye infections. You will observe her for 24 hours to see if there is going to be any challenge or not. After you confirm that the mother is in good health, you can release her to go home. You will give her appointments to come after 7 days and 21 days.’ (IDI, TM_02).

Positive and fulfilling practice

The MomCare and SafeCare bundles were regarded as a blessing to health facilities and mothers. Health workers stated the program served women from all walks of life regardless of their socioeconomic status, residence, age, and HIV status.

In addition, they mentioned that by providing high-quality care to the mothers, they experienced a positive and fulfilling practice since all the mothers had positive outcomes at the end of their pregnancy journey.

That mother had four pregnancies and all of them were dying before delivery. The one we delivered now is the fourth. She had pressure, she had fibroids, and so on. So, the staff here began moving with her from day one of conception. So, when she reached six months, she was more in danger because children used to die between five, six, and seven months. So, the doctors decided to operate. They delivered the baby at six months. We put it in our New Born Unit. Both survived and we are happy we helped. (IDI, KH_66).

Better emergency response and continual care

The majority of the health workers interviewed mentioned that the MomCare and SafeCare bundles led to a faster response to emergencies whenever needed thus reducing the risk of maternal deaths.

………. they (mothers) do benefit in terms of emergencies. If you have a mother who is under MomCare and maybe she is in the village and goes into labor, and then she calls, we usually provide an ambulance. Do you see that as an advantage that others (mothers not covered by MomCare) would not get? (IDI, KH_11).

There are big changes. MomCare has helped to reduce maternal deaths since it has supported those with low income, who could not afford some of the costs related to child delivery. Women come here without any cash, but the MomCare package caters to their needs. If there is any minor need for further medication, the facility usually top-ups. The same is done even in the case of surgery.” (IDI, TH_20).

When it comes to delivery, even at one time, it came a time when the program realized that there are women that time there was during COVID time (COVID-19), movements were restricted they provided ambulance services and women were ferried as long as they would call, the hospital would provide an ambulance and as long as is it is confirmed it is a MomCare mother they pay for it then, in maternity as they deliver, all those services and the expenses that she would incur the MomCare would cater for their payments (IDI, KH_17).

Improved staffing

Understaffing was a common problem at the health facilities before the MomCare and SafeCare bundles were introduced. Many of the health workers interviewed stated that several MomCare nurses and midwives (health workers) were hired to keep pace with the ever-growing number of deliveries in the health facilities. According to the health workers, the hiring of new health workers under the MomCare and SafeCare bundles has helped to reduce their workload.

So, as a facility (health facility), I think we had less personnel by then, but the ones we have now are helping us run because we have hired five nurses, one clinical officer, and then of course, a lab tech (IDI, KH_08).

Increased documentation

Health workers noted that the project involved a lot of paperwork, especially during registration. This issue was worsened by the majority of the women being illiterate—increasing the workload for documentation among the health workers.

So, for negatives, I would only say that it (MomCare) had paperwork. It (MomCare) had a lot of paperwork that I did not like as a person and even the women because you see here, many people, don’t even know how to write. They don’t even know how to sign. So immediately they’re treated, or they come for the ANC, there is a sheet that they were signing and giving their phone numbers and other details and the women disliked that even though we were assisting, you cannot assist a person to put her signature (IDI, Kenya, HW_01).

Improved infrastructure, medical supplies, and logistics

Health workers reported that the MomCare and SafeCare guidelines helped to improve the health facility infrastructure as well as the availability of medical equipment and supplies. Such improvements reduced inter-health facility referrals, increased positive outcomes, and created a conducive workplace.

Facility (Health facility) has signage all over that will give you directions. You will know this is MCH (Maternal and Child Health Clinic), that is accounts, and that is administration, all courtesy of MomCare. The facility walls were also painted and the iron sheets were painted afresh. That was in 2019 it was courtesy of MomCare. The computers, most are courtesy of MomCare. Sometimes staff takes tea once in a while, courtesy of MomCare. A lot has happened. We have a new theatre, courtesy of MomCare. It’s because of the increase in the number of clients (women) that the new theatre had to be built (IDI, KH_49).

It (MomCare) has helped a lot by improving infrastructure that is offering delivery services, it has helped to build family planning facilities, and it has helped in buying maternity equipment and drugs. Those (health workers) who were offering services to the women also received allowances.’ (IDI, TH_17).

In the health facility, generally, our maternity has improved, and we have also improved our postnatal wards because these are the major areas, even the antenatal. We had to move from the other side and come to this side because of the number of clients and at least we have a space for all of them to be accommodated (IDI, TH_19).

Discussion

We report maternal experiences in accessing and using antenatal, skilled birth, and postnatal care, and the experiences of health workers in providing the services during the implementation of the MomCare and SafeCare bundles in Kenya and Tanzania. Before the implementation of the bundles, the majority of the mothers had shunned the health facilities as health services were of insufficient quality and access to health care was problematic due to high direct and indirect costs. In addition, the health workers were demotivated to provide care as the working environment was not conducive due to several factors: a lack of needed equipment, drug stockouts, and inadequate health staffing among others—constituting a weak health system.

Overall, we found the health system improved and became stronger during the implementation of the MomCare and SafeCare bundles. In particular, improvements are reported in maternal and neonatal health services delivery, staffing (human resources for health) supply of health commodities (sufficient drugs, supplies, and equipment), infrastructural development, and financing for maternal and neonatal health, all consistent with the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) framework for health systems strengthening [27]. The WHO argues that a strong health system produces the desired quantity and quality of health services, has an adequate number of skilled health workers of an optimal mix, receives sufficient funding to support health service delivery, has a strong medical logistics and supply chain, and has a strong health management information system. With the implementation of the MomCare and SafeCare bundles, all six WHO’s health systems strengthening blocks remarkably improved.

Our findings revealed positive experiences with the bundles among the mothers and health workers. Maternal experiences revealed easy access to health services, early and optimal ANC use, respectful care provision, absence of financial constraints, good quality care, receipt of all needed medications, and sufficient health education. Findings from health workers revealed a new opportunity to provide quality maternal and newborn care, adherence to the standard of care, positive and fulfilling practice, better emergency response and continual care, improved staffing, increased documentation at all three service delivery points, and infrastructure, medical supplies, and logistics.

Our findings of positive experiences among mothers and health workers are not surprising as several studies report digital technologies to improve the utilization of antenatal, skilled birth, and postnatal care. Digital health technologies are increasingly being used in several sub-Saharan African countries to improve maternal and child health services. Notable health services being improved using digital health technologies include ANC, SBA, and PNC among others [28]. One study conducted in Southern Tanzania showed that a digital health intervention improved neonatal healthcare outcomes, namely temperature control by keeping the neonates dry and warm, cord-cutting practices among health workers, and breastfeeding practices among mothers, including better preparation for obstetric care among expectant mothers through birth preparedness and complication readiness plans [28]. Our findings are consistent with the previous studies. Our findings are also in agreement with a previous study conducted in Tanzania that showed the use of digital health solutions for high-risk pregnancies improves the identification of women at risk for obstetric complications and the subsequent referral to higher-level health facilities [29].

The bundles led to positive experiences among health workers regarding service provision, which is not surprising. One previous study conducted about health workers’ knowledge and attitudes towards the use of digital technologies in the provision of maternal health services at Tumbi Regional Referral Hospital in Tanzania found increased use of digital health technologies [30]. The study further showed that health workers understood the importance of digital health technologies in improving maternal health services besides reporting a positive attitude towards digital health technologies [30]. In another Tanzanian study, a mobile job aid was successfully used to support the counseling of women about contraception [31], which is consistent with our findings about the better quality of care during the postnatal care period due to the bundles.

Our findings agree with the increasing use of digital health technologies to eliminate barriers to accessing health services in sub-Saharan Africa [5].

Study strengths and limitations

The study strengths include large sample size, data collection from all categories of participants, and all three service delivery points (ANC, SBA, and PNC), and using the WHO health systems strengthening blocks as a framework to report our findings of maternal and health worker experiences with the care bundles. Limitations include a lack of baseline qualitative and quantitative data for comparison of the present findings and the use of a qualitative evaluation that cannot demonstrate causation (cause-effect relationship). The lack of quantitative (numerical) data about service indicators both before and after the evaluation to provide a benchmark for comparison is another limitation worth considering. Lastly, it should be noted that bundles complemented the standard of care. Therefore, the findings should be cautiously interpreted so as not to give the impression as if all outcomes are singly attributed to the bundles.

Conclusion and recommendations

The implementation of the MomCare and SafeCare bundles strengthened the health system for better maternal and child health services delivery. Maternal experiences regarding access and utilization of ANC, SBA, and PNC were largely positive. Health worker experiences revealed satisfaction with the delivery of health services including a positive and fulfilling practice. We recommend the replication of the bundles in settings with similar maternal and child health challenges in SSA and beyond.

Supporting information

S1 File. Codebook.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We are overwhelmingly indebted to the study participants for their time in providing invaluable information. We are grateful to all research assistants for their support.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The evaluation was supported by Children's Investment Fund (CIFF), Kenya. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Onambele L, Ortega-Leon W, Guillen-Aguinaga S, Forjaz MJ, Yoseph A, Guillen-Aguinaga L, et al. Maternal Mortality in Africa: Regional Trends (2000–2017). International journal of environmental research and public health. 2022;19(20). Epub 2022/10/28. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192013146 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9602585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kurjak A, Stanojević M, Dudenhausen J. Why maternal mortality in the world remains tragedy in low-income countries and shame for high-income ones: will sustainable development goals (SDG) help? Journal of perinatal medicine. 2023;51(2):170–81. Epub 2022/06/01. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2022-0061 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chamie J. The Dying Children Divide. Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials: More Important Population Matters: Springer; 2023. p. 301–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Feroz A, Perveen S, Aftab W. Role of mHealth applications for improving antenatal and postnatal care in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. BMC health services research. 2017;17(1):704. Epub 2017/11/09. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2664-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5678803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bilal W, Mohanan P, Rahmat ZS, Ahmed Gangat S, Islam Z, Essar MY, et al. Improving access to maternal care in Africa through telemedicine and digital health. The International journal of health planning and management. 2022;37(4):2494–500. Epub 2022/05/17. doi: 10.1002/hpm.3498 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Heřman H, Faridová A, Tefr O, Farid S, Ayayee N, Trojanová K, et al. Telemedicine in prenatal care. Central European journal of public health. 2022;30(2):131–5. Epub 2022/07/26. doi: 10.21101/cejph.a7458 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kusyanti T, Wirakusumah FF, Rinawan FR, Muhith A, Purbasari A, Mawardi F, et al. Technology-Based (Mhealth) and Standard/Traditional Maternal Care for Pregnant Woman: A Systematic Literature Review. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland). 2022;10(7). Epub 2022/07/28. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10071287 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9322765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jo Y, Labrique AB, Lefevre AE, Mehl G, Pfaff T, Walker N, et al. Using the lives saved tool (LiST) to model mHealth impact on neonatal survival in resource-limited settings. PloS one. 2014;9(7):e102224. Epub 2014/07/12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102224 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4094557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lund S, Nielsen BB, Hemed M, Boas IM, Said A, Said K, et al. Mobile phones improve antenatal care attendance in Zanzibar: a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2014;14:29. Epub 2014/01/21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-29 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3898378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kaewkungwal J, Singhasivanon P, Khamsiriwatchara A, Sawang S, Meankaew P, Wechsart A. Application of smart phone in "Better Border Healthcare Program": a module for mother and child care. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2010;10:69. Epub 2010/11/05. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-10-69 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2989931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dzinamarira T, Moyo E, Pierre G, Mpabuka E, Kahere M, Tungwarara N, et al. Postnatal care services availability and utilization during the COVID-19 era in sub-Saharan Africa: A rapid review. Women and birth: journal of the Australian C ollege of Midwives. 2022. Epub 2022/10/18. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2022.10.002 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9550672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gayesa RT, Ngai FW, Xie YJ. The effects of mHealth interventions on improving institutional delivery and uptake of postnatal care services in low-and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC health services research. 2023;23(1):611. Epub 2023/06/10. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09581-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10257264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lee SH, Nurmatov UB, Nwaru BI, Mukherjee M, Grant L, Pagliari C. Effectiveness of mHealth interventions for maternal, newborn and child health in low- and middle-income countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of global health. 2016;6(1):010401. Epub 2015/12/10. doi: 10.7189/jogh.06.010401 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4643860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cantor AG, Jungbauer RM, Totten AM, Tilden EL, Holmes R, Ahmed A, et al. Telehealth Strategies for the Delivery of Maternal Health Care: A Rapid Review. Annals of internal medicine. 2022;175(9):1285–97. Epub 2022/07/26. doi: 10.7326/M22-0737 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gavine A, Marshall J, Buchanan P, Cameron J, Leger A, Ross S, et al. Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Maternal & child nutrition. 2022;18(2):e13296. Epub 2021/12/30. doi: 10.1111/mcn.13296 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8932718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lang’at E, Mwanri L, Temmerman M. Effects of implementing free maternity service policy in Kenya: an interrupted time series analysis. BMC health services research. 2019;19(1):645. Epub 2019/09/08. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4462-x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6729061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Prasad N, Mwakatundu N, Dominico S, Masako P, Mongo W, Mwanshemele Y, et al. Improving Maternal and Reproductive Health in Kigoma, Tanzania: A 13-Year Initiative. Global health, science and practice. 2022;10(2). Epub 2022/04/30. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00484 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9053157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Magati P, Drope J, Mureithi L, Lencucha R. Socio-economic and demographic determinants of tobacco use in Kenya: findings from the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2014. Pan Afr Med J. 2018;30:166. Epub 2018/11/21. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2018.30.166.14771 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6235476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Woldeamanuel BT. Trends and factors associated to early initiation of breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding and duration of breastfeeding in Ethiopia: evidence from the Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. International breastfeeding journal. 2020;15(1):3. Epub 2020/01/12. doi: 10.1186/s13006-019-0248-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6953467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), ICF. 2014 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey (KDHS). Nairobi, Kenya: KNBS and ICF., 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ministry of Health. Community Development G, Elderly, and Children (MoHCDGEC) [Tanzania Mainland], Ministry of Health (MoH) [Zanzibar], National Bureau of Statistics, Office of the Chief Government Statistician (OCGS), ICF. Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey and Malria Indicator Survey (TDHS-MIS) 2015–16. Dare es Salaam: MoHCDGEC, MoH, NBS, OCGS, and ICF, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Syengo M, Suchman L. Private Providers’ Experiences Implementing a Package of Interventions to Improve Quality of Care in Kenya: Findings From a Qualitative Evaluation. Global health, science and practice. 2020;8(3):478–87. Epub 2020/10/04. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-20-00034 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7541106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hernandez MI, Miller EC, Biese KM, Columna L, Andreae SJ, McGuine T, et al. Secondary School Athletic Trainers’ Navigation of Patient Socioeconomic Status Challenges in Care: A Qualitative Study. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2022;19(24). Epub 2022/12/24. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192416709 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9778997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hora R, Ray A, Mehra R, Priya T, Koshal SS, Agrawal P, et al. Enablers and Barriers to the Scaling Up of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in India During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study. Health services insights. 2023;16:11786329231189407. Epub 2023/08/03. doi: 10.1177/11786329231189407 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10392212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chona EZ, Msengi EA, Gosse RA, Ambikile JS. The lived experiences and caring needs of women diagnosed with cervical cancer: A qualitative study in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. PLoS One. 2023;18(8):e0289925. Epub 2023/08/10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289925 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10414621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kabwama SN, Wanyenze RK, Kiwanuka SN, Namale A, Ndejjo R, Monje F, et al. Interventions for Maintenance of Essential Health Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Response in Uganda, between March 2020 and April 2021. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2022;19(19). Epub 2022/10/15. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191912522 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9566395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.World Health Organization. Everybody’s business—strengthening health systems to improve health outcomes: WHO’s framework for action. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sarkar ND, Grietens KP, Dillip A. Towards a digitally-enabled, community-based responsive health system in Tanzania: a formative study for the Afya-Tek digitised health initiative. The Lancet Global Health. 2020;8:S35. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gupta A, Agrawal R, Gupt A, Guleri R, Bajpayee D, Joshi N, et al. Systems E-approach for women at risk (SEWA)-A digital health solution for detection of high-risk pregnancies. Journal of family medicine and primary care. 2021;10(10):3712–9. Epub 2021/12/23. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_466_21 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8653496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Thadeus WK, Mushi LD. Health care professional knowledge and attitude towards the use of digital technologies in provision of maternal health services at Tumbi regional referral hospital in Tanzania. Journal of Medical Research Innovation. 2021;5(1):e000233-e. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.McCool J, Dobson R, Muinga N, Paton C, Pagliari C, Agawal S, et al. Factors influencing the sustainability of digital health interventions in low-resource settings: Lessons from five countries. Journal of global health. 2020;10(2):020396. Epub 2020/12/05. doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.020396 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7696238 form (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no conflicts of interest. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Richard Kalisa

30 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-14716Experiences of mothers and health workers with a Care Bundle in Kenya and Tanzania: a qualitative evaluationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jonathan Izudi,

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 Oct 14 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,

Richard Kalisa, MD, PhD

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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“The evaluation was supported by Children's Investment Fund (CIFF), Kenya. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We thank the Children Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) and PharmAccess International for supporting this evaluation. We are overwhelmingly indebted to the study participants for their time in providing invaluable information. We are grateful to all research assistants for their support.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The evaluation was supported by Children's Investment Fund (CIFF), Kenya. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for considering PLoS ONE for your manuscript "Experiences of mothers and health workers with a Care Bundle in Kenya and Tanzania: a qualitative evaluation". Peer review of your manuscript is now complete and, based on the reports, a major decision has been made your consideration on the shared comments on which final decision will be made. Please you can go ahead to address the reviewer’s comments and submit them within 10 working days. 

[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: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Review comments on Experiences with mothers and health care givers with a care bundle in Kenya and Tanzania

The authors have made a good attempt at qualitatively evaluating a sort of mhealth-driven maternal and newborn health improvement project. The work is well written but will be significantly improved if the authors address the following concerns;

• Include the period of data collection in the abstract

• The Introduction is well written. Lines 82-89 could be improved by quantifying the many improvements alluded to.

• Since much of the problem seems to centre around access, the authors are encouraged to speak more to it by adequately describing what it used to be before the digital dividend project got underway

• “To date, little is known about the experiences of mothers and health workers with MomCare.”………why is this a problem? What is to be lost if this ‘problem’ remains unaddressed. The problem statement and study rationale are not well defined.

• “Besides, the regions had suboptimal use of ANC, SBA, and PNC services”……..the authors should try to quantify this. For instance, adequate ANC coverage (at least 4 visits) was X% in ABC County compared to Y% in DEF County over the same period of time.

• More than 3x as many health facilities were involved in Tanzania than in Kenya. Can the authors explain why this is so?

• I am thinking it is better to use the participant ID codes instead of just ‘mother, Kenya’. That brings out better the individuality in the responses. Also, include the average time of the interviews and the number of FGDs conducted

• Sentence 301-303 doesn’t come out well. It appears to be missing something. Look at it again.

• Under ‘Respectful Care’, 2 participants make mention of “good services”. Can the authors delve deeper into what constitutes “good services”?

• The ‘Discussion’ will be better presented if the authors gave a description of what the health system and service delivery context looked like before the roll-out of MomCare. What services were available or unavailable before MomCare? That way, the readers can better situate the benefits derived from MomCare.

• MomCare offered a subsidized payment on insurance premiums and it shot up utilization of services. Much as this is a qualitative work, the authors can still beef things up with quantitative hospital data regarding ANC attendance, Skilled birth delivery and PNC attendance in the three years before MomCare so that we can see the kind of transition MomCare has brought. In my country, we have had absolutely free maternal care and delivery services since 2007. We have made good progress in the proportion of pregnant women attending ANC at least once and at least 4x but we still don’t have a 100%. Let us not create the impression MomCare has led to a universal utilization of maternal and newborn services.

• Can the authors situate their findings (some if not all) in relevant theories underlying health seeking behaviour and motivation?

• I am missing key challenges in the project. Were there none?

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled: Experiences of mothers and health workers with a Care Bundle in Kenya and Tanzania: a qualitative evaluation.

The title: You are evaluating an experience of women and health workers on two bundles; this should be well shown in the title. Mom Care and Safe Care

Abstract:

- The abstract is unstructured.

- Should give the brief description of participants (? pregnant women, lactating women, type of healthcare workers)

- Themes are not clear and are too many. Should try to summaries and make them clear.

- Conclusion not aligned with the findings.

Overall: The abstract needs revision to be clear and focused.

Background

- Needs to revise and make readable with easiness, as no full stop and no space between sentence and reference.

- Line 75: Recheck 524 deaths per 100,00…Need to be per 100,000.

- 76 revisit the sentence, you may need to omit the word “or”

- Line 97-101 is the repetition of paragraph line 73 with different references. You may need to combine this to be one paragraph.

Overall: Revise language and arrange the paragraphs to get better floor

Methods:

- Move the description of Mom Care to the background.

- Sample size: include reference to justify your method of sample size estimation.

- Line 207: Why specifically female analyst.

General comment

- Needs English revision

**********

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: PONE-D-23-14716_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 16;18(11):e0294536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294536.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Sep 2023

Editorial comments

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.

Response. We have adhered to the PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: “The evaluation was supported by Children's Investment Fund (CIFF), Kenya. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Response. We have revised the Funding Statement to incorporate the needed changes. The revised Funding Statement included in the manuscript reads “The evaluation was supported by Children's Investment Fund (CIFF), Kenya. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.”

1. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response. The amended Funding Statement has been included in the cover letter and it reads: “The evaluation was supported by Children's Investment Fund (CIFF), Kenya. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.”

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Response. We have provided a matching funding information and financial disclosure sections now. Both now reads “The evaluation was supported by Children's Investment Fund (CIFF), Kenya. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.”

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “We thank the Children Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) and PharmAccess International for supporting this evaluation. We are overwhelmingly indebted to the study participants for their time in providing invaluable information. We are grateful to all research assistants for their support.” We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Response. We have removed the funding information from the Acknowledgement Section. The remain text reads “We are overwhelmingly indebted to the study participants for their time in providing invaluable information. We are grateful to all research assistants for their support.”

2. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The evaluation was supported by Children's Investment Fund (CIFF), Kenya. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Response. We have removed any funding-related text from the manuscript. Our updated funding statement should read as follows: “The evaluation was supported by Children's Investment Fund (CIFF), Kenya. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.”

3. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response. We have indicated the amended statements in the cover letter and it reads as follows: “The evaluation was supported by Children's Investment Fund (CIFF), Kenya. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.”

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. Thank you for considering PLoS ONE for your manuscript "Experiences of mothers and health workers with a Care Bundle in Kenya and Tanzania: a qualitative evaluation". Peer review of your manuscript is now complete and, based on the reports, a major decision has been made your consideration on the shared comments on which final decision will be made. Please you can go ahead to address the reviewer’s comments and submit them within 10 working days.

Response. We are grateful for considering our manuscript for review and the wonderful comments from the reviewers which have improved the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

Review comments on Experiences with mothers and health care givers with a care bundle in Kenya and Tanzania. The authors have made a good attempt at qualitatively evaluating a sort of mhealth-driven maternal and newborn health improvement project. The work is well written but will be significantly improved if the authors address the following concerns.

Response. Taking for taking time to review our manuscript. Your comments have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. In the revised manuscript, we have strongly considered your comment #12 so we have re-arranged the findings based on the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) health systems building blocks, namely service delivery, health work force, financing, infrastructure and commodities, heath information systems, and leadership and governance. Our findings address 5 of the 6 domains of the blocks. We hope you will find our revised manuscript more favorable.

1. Include the period of data collection in the abstract.

Response. We have added the data collection period and the new text reads “Between November and December 2022, we conducted a qualitative evaluation across health facilities in Kenya and Tanzania.”

2. The Introduction is well written. Lines 82-89 could be improved by quantifying the many improvements alluded to.

Response. We have re-checked the citations and noted that the importance of digital technologies was reported qualitatively so we found it hard to quantify it. We propose to maintain the description in qualitative terms. Second, we have revised the text on lines 82-89 for clarity so it reads: “The benefits of digital technologies include removing barriers to accessing maternal health services by increasing economic and geographic convenience; promoting health in general but also increasing access to health education, health management, and health research; and, increasing access to health care[6], with the added benefits of increased knowledge as information about pregnancy and newborn health become readily available. Other benefits include increasing the frequency of ANC visits, timing, and quality of services.”

3. Since much of the problem seems to centre around access, the authors are encouraged to speak more to it by adequately describing what it used to be before the digital dividend project got underway.

Response. Thank you for this valuable comment. Problematic access to quality maternal and child health services mostly manifested inform of poor health outcomes. For these reasons, we provided a description of the poor health outcomes before the project implementation thus justifying a need for an intervention. The text reads "In 2019, the MMR in Kenya was 362 deaths per 100,000 live births, and that in Tanzania was 578 deaths per 100,000 live births. The 5-year neonatal mortality rate (NNMR) in Kenya was 22 per 1,000 live births and the infant mortality rate (IMR) was 39 per 1,000 live births. In Tanzania, the NNMR was 25 deaths per 1,000 births and the IMR was 43 deaths per 1,000 births. These rates are among the highest in SSA".

In addition, we added a new text to emphasize the problem of access to health services and it reads " One of the reasons for the poor maternal and child health outcomes is a lack of adequate access to quality health services in certain regions within and between the countries."

4. “To date, little is known about the experiences of mothers and health workers with MomCare.”………why is this a problem? What is to be lost if this ‘problem’ remains unaddressed. The problem statement and study rationale are not well defined.

Response. We have revised the sentence for clarity thus providing a rationale for the evaluation of the project. The revised sentence reads as follows: “Despite the potential benefits of the care bundles, there is little known about the experiences of mothers and health workers with the bundles. Understanding these experiences is critical in order to inform the programming and implementation of the digital dividend project—recognizing the program failures and successes, determining the best approaches for addressing the failures, and taking full advantage of the successes in future programming.”

5. “Besides, the regions had suboptimal use of ANC, SBA, and PNC services”……..the authors should try to quantify this. For instance, adequate ANC coverage (at least 4 visits) was X% in ABC County compared to Y% in DEF County over the same period of time.

Response. Thank you for this comment. We have deleted the above sentence because it is a repeat of previous data.

6. More than 3x as many health facilities were involved in Tanzania than in Kenya. Can the authors explain why this is so?

Response. We agree regarding the huge difference in the number of health facilities reported in the study between Kenya and Tanzania—51 vs. 16, respectively. These figures are accurate and are based on geographical and population differences between the 2 countries, with Tanzania having a wider geographical scope and a higher population compared to Kenya. To improve access to health services for its population, it is inevitable that Tanzania had more health facilities than Kenya. Third, from a programmatic viewpoint, the project was implemented at more health facilities in Tanzania than Kenya hence the observed difference.

7. I am thinking it is better to use the participant ID codes instead of just ‘mother, Kenya’. That brings out better the individuality in the responses. Also, include the average time of the interviews and the number of FGDs conducted.

Response. We have included the average time for the interviews using the text “Interviews were conducted in a noiseless place within the health facility premises, Monday to Friday, 9.00 am to 5.00 pm, lasting 30-45 minutes on average”.

Regarding the number of participants in each focused group discussion (FGD), we had included it our earlier submission and the text was: “FGDs were conducted by two people, a moderator and a note-taker. Each group comprised 8-12 women with comparable age and parity”. This text has been maintained in the revised submission. Regarding using participant codes, the idea was to anonymize the data. Based on the comment, we have now added the participants unique codes.

8. Sentence 301-303 doesn’t come out well. It appears to be missing something. Look at it again.

Response. We agree that the sentence was not clear as some words were missed. We have revised the text for clarity and it reads “The participants mentioned that the bundles eased access to ANC, SBA, and PNC as the services became free due to health insurance schemes like the Linda Mama and the National Health Insurance Fund. In addition, they reported that the health insurance scheme provided them with comprehensive cover for their pregnancy journey like receiving more than one free ultrasound scan and undertaking several laboratory tests and other procedures.”

9. Under ‘Respectful Care’, 2 participants make mention of “good services”. Can the authors delve deeper into what constitutes “good services”?

Response. Thank you for this valuable comment. We reported quotes from 2 participants although several participants talked about respectful care. As stated in the quotes, the mothers were pleased with the health services they received because the health workers handled them with care, never harassed or abused them, and treated them with dignity and respect. We have revised the sentence to strengthen the point and to bring to context that several participants actually talked about respectful care.

“The majority of the women in Kenya and Tanzania indicate that the health workers treated them with respect and dignity during their ANC visits, a factor that motivated them to continue with all planned ANC schedules. For example, the health workers showed a positive attitude towards pregnant women during ANC visits, provided them with non-judgmental care, and ensured a conducive environment and open communication including respect—constituting respectful care. Overall, there was a good relationship between the health workers and mothers.”

10. The ‘Discussion’ will be better presented if the authors gave a description of what the health system and service delivery context looked like before the roll-out of MomCare. What services were available or unavailable before MomCare? That way, the readers can better situate the benefits derived from MomCare.

Response. We agree with this comment. We have provided a brief description of health status and health service delivery to set the pace for contrasting with the discussion points.

The brief text reads: “Before the implementation of the bundles, the majority of the mothers had shunned the health facilities as health services were of insufficient quality and access to health care was problematic due to high direct and indirect costs. In addition, the health workers were demotivated to provide care as the working environment was not conducive due to several factors: a lack of needed equipment, drug stockouts, and inadequate health staffing among others—constituting a weak health system.”

11. MomCare offered a subsidized payment on insurance premiums and it shot up utilization of services. Much as this is a qualitative work, the authors can still beef things up with quantitative hospital data regarding ANC attendance, Skilled birth delivery and PNC attendance in the three years before MomCare so that we can see the kind of transition MomCare has brought. In my country, we have had absolutely free maternal care and delivery services since 2007. We have made good progress in the proportion of pregnant women attending ANC at least once and at least 4x but we still don’t have a 100%. Let us not create the impression MomCare has led to a universal utilization of maternal and newborn services.

Response. We agree to not overstating the benefits of MomCare in improving service utilization as it complemented the standard of care. Therefore, we have revised certain sections of the texts. We do not have quantitative data about maternal and child health outcomes as well as the service utilization, both of which have been stated as limitations to the study. The revised limitations section read as follows: “Limitations include a lack of baseline qualitative and quantitative data for comparison of the present findings and the use of a qualitative evaluation that cannot demonstrate causation (cause-effect relationship). The lack of quantitative data about service indicators both before and after the evaluation to provide a benchmark for comparison is another limitation worth considering. Lastly, it should be noted that bundles complemented the standard of care. Therefore, the findings should be cautiously interpreted so as not to give the impression as if all outcomes are singly attributed to the bundles.”

12. Can the authors situate their findings (some if not all) in relevant theories underlying health seeking behaviour and motivation?

Response. We appreciate the use of theories, models, or frameworks in presenting the findings of qualitative studies because it improves the rigor. Accordingly, we have adapted the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) health systems strengthening building blocks framework in reporting the findings. We have added a text in the methods section, under the data analysis to indicate this change. The text reads “Along with the participant’s quotes, we presented the themes and sub-themes for the maternal and health worker experiences based on the World Health Organization’s health systems strengthening building blocks as the guiding framework. The six building blocks are service delivery, health work force, financing, infrastructure and commodities, heath information systems, and leadership and governance.”

13. I am missing key challenges in the project. Were there none?

Response. The project indeed had challenges. However, we felt that the challenges fell outside the scope of the question addressed by the current manuscript. Therefore, we did not report them.

Reviewer #2:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled: Experiences of mothers and health workers with a Care Bundle in Kenya and Tanzania: a qualitative evaluation.

Response. We thank you for dedicating time to rigorously read and review our manuscript, and to provide insightful comments which have now improved the quality. We are forever grateful. Below, we addressed each specific comment and where we had challenges in addressing any, we offered and explanation.

The title:

1. You are evaluating an experience of women and health workers on two bundles; this should be well shown in the title. Mom Care and Safe Care

Response. We have revised the title and it reads: “Experiences of mothers and health workers with MomCare and SafeCare Bundles in Kenya and Tanzania: a qualitative evaluation”

Abstract:

2. The abstract is unstructured.

Response. The PLoS ONE requirement is to have an unstructured abstract hence the current abstract. We are happy to submit a structured abstract if required.

3. Should give the brief description of participants (? pregnant women, lactating women, type of healthcare workers)

Response. We have added a description of the participants. The new text reads: “We held Interviews with mothers (pregnant and postpartum women who had benefited from the care bundles) and health workers (physicians, nurses, and midwives who provided the care bundles, including health facility In-Charges) at the antenatal care (ANC), skilled birth attendance (SBA), and postnatal care (PNC) service delivery points.”

4. Themes are not clear and are too many. Should try to summaries and make them clear.

Response. We appreciate this comment and have revised the themes for clarity. Regarding the number of themes, we found it a little hard to reduce them given the objectives of the study. The themes and sub-themes are a summary of the important ones. Please note that reviewer #1 suggested that we used a model, or theory, or framework to situate our findings (comment #12). In response, we have used the WHO health systems building blocks as a framework to report the findings. These now reduced the themes to 5 but the sub-themes remain. We propose to maintain them.

5. Conclusion not aligned with the findings.

Response. Overall, the bundles led to a strengthened heath system for better delivery of maternal and child health services and our conclusion has been aligned to speak to this finding. Therefore, the text for the conclusion reads as follows: “Overall, the care bundles led to the strengthening of the healthcare system (staffing, service delivery, financing, supplies/logistics, and information management) in order to deliver quality maternal and child health services. The bundles should be replicated in settings with similar maternal and child health challenges.”

6. Overall: The abstract needs revision to be clear and focused.

Response. We have revised the abstract for clarity.

Background

7. Needs to revise and make readable with easiness, as no full stop and no space between sentence and reference.

Response. We have revised the background section, addressing all punctuation errors and other identifiable issues.

8. Line 75: Recheck 524 deaths per 100,00…Need to be per 100,000.

Response. This has been corrected to read as “524 deaths per 100,000 live births.”

9. 76 revisit the sentence, you may need to omit the word “or”

Response. This has been corrected. The revised text reads “To achieve the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target of reducing MMR to less than 70 deaths per 100,000 live births and neonatal mortality to below 12 deaths per 1,000 live births, context-specific interventions are urgently needed.”

10. Line 97-101 is the repetition of paragraph line 73 with different references. You may need to combine this to be one paragraph.

Response. Thank you for this comment. The initial lines reported the most recent data about maternal mortality ratio (MMR) using the 2022 data. The text is " The 2022 Demographic and Health Survey data placed the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) in Kenya at 342 deaths per 100,000 live births, and in Tanzania at 524 deaths per 100,000 live births." The other lines, reported MMR in 2019—the data that motivated a need for the project. The text is "In 2019, the MMR in Kenya was 362 deaths per 100,000 live births, and that in Tanzania was 578 deaths per 100,000 live births." Both sections are thus different.

11. Overall: Revise language and arrange the paragraphs to get better floor.

Response. We have revised the manuscript for clarity and performed spelling and grammatically checks.

Methods:

12. Move the description of Mom Care to the background.

Response. We have added the description of MomCare to the background as recommended.

13. Sample size: include reference to justify your method of sample size estimation.

Response. We have provided reference to justify the principle of saturation as used in qualitative studies. The revised text reads as follows: “No sample size was calculated but the number of people interviewed depended on a priori sample size deemed sufficient to achieve saturation, a point at which no new information emerges despite additional data collection as reported in previous qualitative studies”. Reference numbers are #19-21.

14. Line 207: Why specifically female analyst.

Response. We do not have a particular reason for using female analysts. It was by chance that female analysts were recruited. Overall, no specific reason.

General comment

15. Needs English revision.

Response. We have read the manuscript and made needed revisions. We have done a spelling and grammatically checks. We believe the manuscript is clear now.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Azmeraw Ambachew Kebede

30 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-14716R1Experiences of mothers and health workers with MomCare and SafeCare Bundles in Kenya and Tanzania: a qualitative evaluationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Izudi,

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 Dec 14 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,

Azmeraw Ambachew Kebede, MSc

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 #1: (No Response)

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Experiences of mothers and health workers with MomCare and SafeCare Bundles in Kenya and Tanzania: a qualitative evaluation. PONE-D-23-14716R1

General Comments

I thank the authors for incorporating the review comments and suggestions. On the bases of their responses, I still have a few comments for them to address. I therefore recommend a minor revision at this stage

1.Response. We have re-checked the citations and noted that the importance of digital technologies was reported qualitatively so we found it hard to quantify it. We propose to maintain the description in qualitative terms. Second, we have revised the text on lines 82-89 for clarity so it reads: “The benefits of digital technologies include removing barriers to accessing maternal health services by increasing economic and geographic convenience; promoting health in general but also increasing access to health education, health management, and health research; and, increasing access to health care[6], with the added benefits of increased knowledge as information about pregnancy and newborn health become readily available. Other benefits include increasing the frequency of ANC visits, timing, and quality of services.”

Regarding the above, I am sure you can find systematic reviews that will enable you quantify maternal and newborn health outcomes following trials with mHealth/digital technologies.

2.Response. Thank you for this valuable comment. Problematic access to quality maternal and child health services mostly manifested inform of poor health outcomes. For these reasons, we provided a description of the poor health outcomes before the project implementation thus justifying a need for an intervention. The text reads "In 2019, the MMR in Kenya was 362 deaths per 100,000 live births, and that in Tanzania was 578 deaths per 100,000 live births. The 5-year neonatal mortality rate (NNMR) in Kenya was 22 per 1,000 live births and the infant mortality rate (IMR) was 39 per 1,000 live births. In Tanzania, the NNMR was 25 deaths per 1,000 births and the IMR was 43 deaths per 1,000 births. These rates are among the highest in SSA". In addition, we added a new text to emphasize the problem of access to health services and it reads " One of the reasons for the poor maternal and child health outcomes is a lack of adequate access to quality health services in certain regions within and between the countries."

Outcomes such as those described in your manuscript reflect not only access but a myriad of other factors. I think your work would be clearer if you could quantify ‘access’ in terms of, for example, ANC attendance in XXX area was 54% or skilled delivery at YYYY hospital was 48%, etc before the digital intervention.……if you can find the data to support it

3.Response. We agree regarding the huge difference in the number of health facilities reported in the study between Kenya and Tanzania—51 vs. 16, respectively. These figures are accurate and are based on geographical and population differences between the 2 countries, with Tanzania having a wider geographical scope and a higher population compared to Kenya. To improve access to health services for its population, it is inevitable that Tanzania had more health facilities than Kenya. Third, from a programmatic viewpoint, the project was implemented at more health facilities in Tanzania than Kenya hence the observed difference.

Understood……but find a way to work this explanation into the manuscript…albeit brief.

4.The brief text reads: “Before the implementation of the bundles, the majority of the mothers had shunned the health facilities as health services were of insufficient quality and access to health care was problematic due to high direct and indirect costs. In addition, the health workers were demotivated to provide care as the working environment was not conducive due to several factors: a lack of needed equipment, drug stockouts, and inadequate health staffing among others—constituting a weak health system.”

Great! This reinforces my call for quantifying access in (2) abov

Reviewer #2: Thank you for responding to all comments I have raised.

The manuscript reads better and is focused.

The abstract and whole manuscript reads well.

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 16;18(11):e0294536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294536.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


31 Oct 2023

Response to Reviewers

General Comments

I thank the authors for incorporating the review comments and suggestions. On the bases of their responses, I still have a few comments for them to address. I therefore recommend a minor revision at this stage.

Response. We thank the reviewers for taking time to rigorously review our manuscript. We received very valuable comments that have tremendously improved the quality of the manuscript.

1. Response. We have re-checked the citations and noted that the importance of digital technologies was reported qualitatively so we found it hard to quantify it. We propose to maintain the description in qualitative terms. Second, we have revised the text on lines 82-89 for clarity so it reads: “The benefits of digital technologies include removing barriers to accessing maternal health services by increasing economic and geographic convenience; promoting health in general but also increasing access to health education, health management, and health research; and, increasing access to health care[6], with the added benefits of increased knowledge as information about pregnancy and newborn health become readily available. Other benefits include increasing the frequency of ANC visits, timing, and quality of services.”

Regarding the above, I am sure you can find systematic reviews that will enable you quantify maternal and newborn health outcomes following trials with mHealth/digital technologies.

Response. Thank you for the guidance. We have now added findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses to the manuscript to quantify the effect of mHealth. The new text reads as follows:

“According to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of data from low and lower-middle-income countries, mHealth increases SBA by more than twofold (pooled odds ratio [OR] 2.21, 95% CI 1.61-2.89), PNC use by nearly more than four-fold (pooled OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.90-8.97), and exclusive breastfeeding by nearly 2.3-fold (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.46-3.46). Another systematic review and meta-analysis in low- and middle-income countries found that text messaging and mobile phone use improved breastfeeding within the first hour of life (pooled OR 2.01, 95% CI.27-2.75), as well as exclusive breastfeeding at 3-4 months (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.26-2.50) and 6 months (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.46-3.68).”

2. Response. Thank you for this valuable comment. Problematic access to quality maternal and child health services mostly manifested inform of poor health outcomes. For these reasons, we provided a description of the poor health outcomes before the project implementation thus justifying a need for an intervention. The text reads "In 2019, the MMR in Kenya was 362 deaths per 100,000 live births, and that in Tanzania was 578 deaths per 100,000 live births. The 5-year neonatal mortality rate (NNMR) in Kenya was 22 per 1,000 live births and the infant mortality rate (IMR) was 39 per 1,000 live births. In Tanzania, the NNMR was 25 deaths per 1,000 births and the IMR was 43 deaths per 1,000 births. These rates are among the highest in SSA". In addition, we added a new text to emphasize the problem of access to health services and it reads " One of the reasons for the poor maternal and child health outcomes is a lack of adequate access to quality health services in certain regions within and between the countries."

Outcomes such as those described in your manuscript reflect not only access but a myriad of other factors. I think your work would be clearer if you could quantify ‘access’ in terms of, for example, ANC attendance in XXX area was 54% or skilled delivery at YYYY hospital was 48%, etc before the digital intervention.……if you can find the data to support it.

Response. Thank you for the valuable comment. We have quantified the access in terms of ANC, SBA, and PNC before the digital intervention and the new text reads as follows:

“Prior to the digital intervention, in Kenya, the proportion of ANC attendance in Kakamega was 96.4% and that in Kisumu was 98.5%, with 47.0% SBA in Kakamega and 69.5% in Kisumu, and PNC checkup in the first two days after birth at 34.6% in the western region of Kakamega and 61.0% in the Nyanza region of Kisumu. Tanzania's average four or more ANC visits was 51%, while it was rather high in the Manyara (98.2%) and Kilimanjaro (94.5%) regions. SBA was 47.5% in Manyara versus 95.5% in Kilimanjaro, but PNC checkup in the first two days after birth was significantly higher in Kilimanjaro than in Manyara (59.2% versus 26.5%, respectively).”

3. Response. We agree regarding the huge difference in the number of health facilities reported in the study between Kenya and Tanzania—51 vs. 16, respectively. These figures are accurate and are based on geographical and population differences between the 2 countries, with Tanzania having a wider geographical scope and a higher population compared to Kenya. To improve access to health services for its population, it is inevitable that Tanzania had more health facilities than Kenya. Third, from a programmatic viewpoint, the project was implemented at more health facilities in Tanzania than Kenya hence the observed difference.

Understood……but find a way to work this explanation into the manuscript…albeit brief.

Response. Again, thank you the comment. We have inserted a brief explanation and it reads “The disparity in the number of health facilities analyzed could be attributed to current health needs, increased demand for health services due to population density, and the desire to expand health-care coverage, among other considerations.”

4. The brief text reads: “Before the implementation of the bundles, the majority of the mothers had shunned the health facilities as health services were of insufficient quality and access to health care was problematic due to high direct and indirect costs. In addition, the health workers were demotivated to provide care as the working environment was not conducive due to several factors: a lack of needed equipment, drug stockouts, and inadequate health staffing among others—constituting a weak health system.”

Great! This reinforces my call for quantifying access in (2) above.

Response. Thank you for the compliments. We have added the required data about service utilization in comment #2.

New citations regarding the added texts:

1. Gayesa RT, Ngai FW, Xie YJ. The effects of mHealth interventions on improving institutional delivery and uptake of postnatal care services in low-and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC health services research. 2023;23(1):611. Epub 2023/06/10. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09581-7. PubMed PMID: 37296420; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC10257264.

2. Lee SH, Nurmatov UB, Nwaru BI, Mukherjee M, Grant L, Pagliari C. Effectiveness of mHealth interventions for maternal, newborn and child health in low- and middle-income countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of global health. 2016;6(1):010401. Epub 2015/12/10. doi: 10.7189/jogh.06.010401. PubMed PMID: 26649177; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4643860.

3. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), ICF. 2014 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey (KDHS). Nairobi, Kenya: KNBS and ICF., 2014.

4. Ministry of Health. Community Development G, Elderly, and Children (MoHCDGEC) [Tanzania Mainland],, Ministry of Health (MoH) [Zanzibar], National Bureau of Statistics, Office of the Chief Government Statistician (OCGS), ICF. Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey and Malria Indicator Survey (TDHS-MIS) 2015-16. Dare es Salaam: MoHCDGEC, MoH, NBS, OCGS, and ICF, 2016.

Decision Letter 2

Azmeraw Ambachew Kebede

3 Nov 2023

Experiences of mothers and health workers with MomCare and SafeCare Bundles in Kenya and Tanzania: a qualitative evaluation

PONE-D-23-14716R2

Dear Dr. Izudi,

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,

Azmeraw Ambachew Kebede, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Azmeraw Ambachew Kebede

7 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-14716R2

Experiences of mothers and health workers with MomCare and SafeCare Bundles in Kenya and Tanzania: a qualitative evaluation

Dear Dr. Izudi:

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

Mr. Azmeraw Ambachew Kebede

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 File. Codebook.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-14716_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES