Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Dec 5;18(12):e0295220. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295220

Antenatal care booked rural residence women have home delivery during the era of COVID-19 pandemic in Gidan District, Ethiopia

Desale Bihonegn Asmamaw 1,*, Yohannes Ayanaw Habitu 1, Eskedar Getie Mekonnen 1, Wubshet Debebe Negash 2
Editor: Pracheth Raghuveer3
PMCID: PMC10697573  PMID: 38051747

Abstract

Background

World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that every pregnant woman receive quality care throughout pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period. It is estimated that institutional delivery could reduce 16% to 33% of maternal deaths. Despite the importance of giving birth at a health institution, in Ethiopia, according to the Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey report, nearly half of the ANC-booked mothers gave birth at home. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the prevalence and associated factors of home delivery among antenatal care-booked women in their last pregnancy during the era of COVID-19.

Methods

A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from March 30 to April 29, 2021. A simple random technique was employed to select 770 participants among women booked for antenatal care. Interviewer-administered questionnaires were used to collect the data. A binary logistic regression model was fitted. Adjusted odds ratios with its respective 95% confidence interval were used to declare the associated factors.

Results

The prevalence of home delivery was 28.8% (95% CI: 25.7, 32.2). Rural residence (AOR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.23, 3.34), unmarried women (AOR = 11.16, 95% CI: 4.18, 29.79), husband education (AOR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.72, 3.91), not being involved in the women’s development army (AOR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.01, 2.65), and fear of COVID-19 infection (AOR = 3.86, 95% CI: 2.31, 6.44) were significantly associated factors of home delivery.

Conclusion

Even though the government tried to lower the rate of home delivery by accessing health institutions in remote areas, implementing a women’s development army, and introducing maternal waiting home utilization, nearly one in every three pregnant women gave birth at home among ANC booked women in their last pregnancy. Thus, improving the husband’s educational status, providing information related to health institution delivery benefits during antenatal care, and strengthening the implementation of the women’s development army, particularly among rural and unmarried women, would decrease home childbirth practices.

Background

Maternal mortality is one of the most common public health problems in low and middle-income countries [1]. Reduction of maternal mortality remains a priority agenda under Goal 3 in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through 2030. This calls for the ambition of a maternal mortality ratio reduction of less than 70 per 100,000 live births between 2016 and 2030 [2]. Worldwide, approximately 295,000 women died during and after pregnancy and childbirth. The majority (94%) of deaths occurred in developing countries, including Ethiopia. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Southern Asia accounted for approximately 86% of all maternal deaths worldwide. Of this, two-thirds of the deaths were from SSA [3,4]. The maternal mortality ratio (MMR) in low-income countries is 462 deaths per 100,000 live births [3]. Ethiopia is among the countries in which high maternal mortality has occurred. The MMR in Ethiopia is 412 deaths per 100,000 live births [3].

The continuum of maternal health care is crucial to saving the mother and the child. In addition, they are indicators of progress toward the achievement of sustainable development goals [5,6]. The World Health Organization endorsed the need for skilled care for all women during their labor and immediately afterward [7]. ANC follow-up has increased in many parts of the world. However, only 46% of developing countries and 26% of Ethiopia benefited from skilled personnel attendance. Attendance by skilled personnel is advocated as the single most important factor in preventing maternal mortality and morbidity [6,8].

In SSA, only 17.7% of women chose to deliver at the health institution [9]. If pregnant women give birth at home, it increases the risk of infection and postpartum hemorrhage [10]. As a result, maternal deaths from hemorrhage, prolonged or obstructed labor, ruptured uterus, severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, sepsis, and abortion complications continue to be a problem [11]. The aforementioned causes can be detected and managed early during ANC and the intrapartum period by existing and well-known medical interventions [12]. Most home deliveries, mainly those of unattended births, are not only a problem for the mother, but they also result in perinatal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. In the SSA, home births were found to have a 21% higher rate of perinatal mortality than facility births [13].

Home delivery in itself is not a cause of maternal and child deaths, it becomes a risk factor when home deliveries occur without a skilled attendant due to the possibility of infection or a lack of equipment in case of complications [14]. Attending an ANC visit does not mean that deliveries of pregnant women will take place at a health institution. Despite 62% of women attending ANC, three-fourths of women nationwide gave birth at home [8]. Another study from Ethiopia revealed that many women unpredictably did not give birth in health institutions despite antenatal care [6].

Because of the COVID-19 infection, countries are facing significant challenges to maintain high-quality, essential maternal and newborn health services [15]. Mothers with newborns and pregnant women may experience difficulty accessing healthcare services due to disruptions in transportation and lockdowns or fear of COVID-19 infection. Thus, pregnancy-related and newborn healthcare coverage declined by 10% due to the pandemic. This would result in 28,000 maternal deaths [15,16].

There are variety of literature reporting factors that affect the use of ANC services and the place of delivery [1724], but there is no adequate literature explaining why ANC-booked women prefer home deliveries. This leaves maternal morbidity and mortality a public health problem. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the prevalence and associated factors of home delivery among women who had antenatal care booked in their last pregnancy during the era of COVID-19. By analyzing this study, policymakers will be able to find the appropriate strategy for improving maternal and child health in the area.

Methods

Study design and setting

A community-based cross-sectional study design was conducted from March 30 to April 29, 2021, in the Gidan district, North Wollo zone, Northeastern Ethiopia. The district is located 595 Kilometers (km) away from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia, and it has two urban and 21 rural kebeles (the lowest administrative unit). It has an estimated 148,058 population based on the population projection from the 2007 census through 2020, of which 74,461 and 29,649 are females and reproductive age women, respectively. The district has six health centers and 23 health posts that provide routine health services for the catchment population [25]. The study was conducted from March 30 to April 29, 2021.

Study population, sample size determination, and sampling procedures

The study population consisted of all ANC-booked mothers who gave birth within the last year and resided in the selected kebeles of the district. The required sample size for home delivery was calculated using the single population proportion formula, considering the following statistical assumptions: margin of error 5% (0.05), Z-value 1.96 corresponding to 95% confidence level, design effect 2, and the prevalence of home delivery was 35.2% [18], accordingly the sample size was computed as:

n=(Zα1/2)2P(1P)d2
n=(1.96)2(0.352)(10.352)(0.05)2=350

n = 350

After adding a 10% non-response rate and multiplying it by the design effect of 2, the total sample size of this study was 770 mothers. A simple random sampling technique was used to select the participants. From 23 kebeles, seven kebeles were selected by a simple random sampling technique using the lottery method. The list of ANC-booked mothers who gave birth in the last year was identified by the health center and health extension workers. The sample size was proportionally allocated to each selected kebele, considering the number of women. Mothers in the sampled kebeles were selected by using a simple random sampling technique (Open Epi Random Program version 3) (Fig 1). Regardless of the outcome, limiting the participants to only 1 year and after one month of giving birth was done to minimize potential recall bias and make the mother stabilized and comfortable. If the respondents were not available at home during the time of data collection, interviewers revisited the households three times, and when the interviewers failed to find the eligible respondent after three visits, the next household was included.

Fig 1. Schematic presentation of the sampling procedure.

Fig 1

Study variables

The outcome variable was home delivery. when a woman gave birth at her home or others’ homes (neighbors, relatives, or family) or when a birth took place outside of health institutions. It was dichotomized and coded as "0" and "1," representing those who had delivered at health institutions and home, respectively [26]. The independent variables were socio-demographic (age, educational status of women and husbands, occupation, marital status, residence), obstetrics-related characteristics (parity, pregnancy status, bad obstetric history), fear of COVID-19 infection, and other characteristics like membership in the Women’s Development Army (WDA). Fear of COVID-19 infection means fear of oneself or family members being infected with COVID-19 infection during pregnancy when visiting health institutions [27].

Data quality assurance

Data collectors and supervisors were trained for two days, focusing on how to ask and fill out the questionnaires, the selection criteria for women, and how to approach the respondents. Before starting the actual data collection, the data collectors practiced in the field, and the questionnaires were pretested on 39 study participants (5%) in the Gubalafto district. Findings and experiences from the pretest were utilized in modifying the data collection tool. The data collectors and the supervisors assessed the clarity and completeness of the filled-out questionnaires. The whole data collection process was closely supervised by the principal investigator (PI).

Data collection tools and procedures

Structured interviewer-administered questionnaires developed from reviewing different related literature were used for data collection [18,2833]. First, the questionnaires were developed in English. Then it was translated into Amharic (the local language) and retranslated back into the English language to check its consistency by language experts. The questionnaire was separated into different sections such as socio-demographic characteristics, obstetric-related characteristics of the participants, and other characteristics like fear of COVID-19 infection, lack of transport, and membership in WDA. Data collectors approached the women by introducing themselves and interviewing the selected respondent after informed consent had been obtained. Eight BSc midwifery or nursing data collectors and two supervisors in the same field with experience in research and fieldwork coordination participated in the data collection process.

Data processing and analysis

The collected data were checked for completeness before being entered into Epi-data version 4.6 statistical software. Then it was exported to STATA version 14 statistical software for cleaning, coding, and analysis. Descriptive statistics were described using frequencies, percentages, mean, and standard deviation, which was further presented using tables, figures, and text. Normality tests such as kurtosis and skewness were employed to see the normal distribution of the variables and to identify which summary measures were appropriate to use. Before identifying the significant factors, multicollinearity was tested using the variance inflation factor (VIF), and we have a VIF of less than five for each independent variable with a mean VIF of 1.56, indicating there is no significant multicollinearity between independent variables [34]. According to the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, the model was adequate with a p-value of 0.26. The case-to-variable ratio showed 12.8 to 1, which indicates a ratio above the required 5 to 1.

A binary logistic regression analysis was carried out to identify factors associated with home delivery. Those variables with a P-value ≤ 0.25 from the bivariable analysis were entered into a multivariable logistic regression model to control the possible effects of confounder/s. The odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals was computed to see if there was an association between home delivery and associated factors. A P-value of 0.05 was used to declare a statistical association.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Gondar (Ref. No: IPH/142/2013). Similarly, a supportive letter was taken from the district administrative office to be given to the selected kebeles. Verbal informed consent was obtained from each participant. Participants were also informed that participation was voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time they wanted. All data obtained from participants was kept confidential and used only for this study. The study was conducted according to the Helsinki Declaration.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents

About 760 women participated, giving a response rate of 98.7%. The mean age of the study participants was 27 (SD±5.3) years, and 306 (40.3%) of them fell within the age category of 26–30 years. Three-fourths (75.4%) of the respondents were rural dwellers, and almost all (99.6%) participants were orthodox Christian followers (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents in Gidan District, Northeastern Ethiopia, 2021(N = 760).

Variables Frequency(n) Percentage (%)
Age of the mother in years
    <20 74 9.7
    20–25 197 25.9
    26–30 306 40.3
    >30 183 24.1
Religion
    Orthodox 757 99.6
    Muslim 3 0.4
Educational status of the mother
    No formal education 346 45.5
    Primary school 302 39.7
    Secondary school and above 112 14.8
Occupation of the mother
    Housewife 645 84.9
    Government employed 83 10.9
    Self-employed 24 3.1
    Other * 8 1.1
Current marital status
    Married 671 88.3
    Single 63 8.3
    Widowed 18 2.4
    Other** 8 1
Educational status of the husband
    No formal education 361 53.8
    Primary school 202 30.1
    Secondary school and above 108 16.1
Occupation of the husband
    Farmer 541 80.6
    Government employed 51 7.6
    Self-employed 61 9.1
    Other*** 18 2.7
Residence
    Rural 573 75.4
    Urban 187 24.6

*student

**divorced, separated

***daily labor, soldier.

Obstetrics and other related factors

Among the study participants, 612 (80.5%) and 650 (85.5%) of the mothers were multiparous and had an ANC visit for their index child, respectively. One hundred and fifty-six (20.5%) of the participants were involved in the Women’s Development Army (WDA). About 532 (70%) of the mothers feared COVID-19 infection (Table 2).

Table 2. Obstetrics and other related factors of the respondent in Gidan District, Northeastern Ethiopia, 2021(N = 760).

Variables Frequency (n) Percentage (%)
Parity
Primipara 148 19.5
Multipara 612 80.5
Antenatal care
    Yes 650 85.5
    No 110 14.5
Pregnancy status
    Planned 703 92.5
    Unplanned 57 7.5
Membership for WDA
    Yes 156 20.5
    No 604 79.5
Bad obstetrics history
    Yes 102 13.42
    No 658 86.58
Interruption and diversion of
maternal health care service
    Yes 585 76.9
    No 175 23.1
Fear of COVID-19
    Yes 532 70
    No 228 30
Lack of transport access
Yes

103

13.6
    No 657 86.4

Abbreviations; Women development army; COVID-19, coronavirus diseases.

Place of delivery

The prevalence of home delivery in Gidan district was 28.8% (95% CI: 25.7%, 32.2%).

Factors associated with home delivery

In bivariable logistic regression, rural residence, unmarried women, husband education, not being involved in WDA, and fear of COVID-19 infection were statistically significant factors for home delivery among ANC-booked women. Accordingly, the odds of home delivery were 2.02 times higher among rural residents (AOR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.23, 3.34) compared to urban residents. Similarly, the odds of women having a home delivery were 11.16 (AOR = 11.16, 95% CI: 4.18, 29.79) times higher among unmarried women compared to married women.

Pregnant women who had no formally educated husbands had 2.60 times (AOR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.72, 3.91) higher odds of home delivery compared to their counterparts. The likelihood of home delivery was 1.64 times higher (AOR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.01, 2.65) among respondents who were not involved in WDA as compared to their counterparts. Home delivery was 3.86 times higher among women who feared COVID-19 infection (AOR = 3.86, 95% CI: 2.31, 6.44) than their counterparts (Table 3).

Table 3. Multi-variable regression for factors associated with home delivery in Gidan District, Northeastern, Ethiopia, 2021(N = 760).

Variables Home delivery COR(95%CI AOR (95%CI)
Yes No
Age (years)
<20 25 49 1.16 (0.65–2.06) 1.43(0.67–3.04)
20–25 56 141 0.90 (0.58–1.14) 0.89 (0.51–1.57)
26–30 82 224 0.83 (0.55–1.24) 0.86(0.53–1.38)
>30 56 127 1 1
Educational status respondents
    No formal
Education
111 235 2.05 (1.21–3.46) 1.47 (0.78–2.79)
    Primary 87 215 1.75 (1.03–3.00) 1.51 (0.81–2.29)
    Secondary and above 21 91 1 1
Education of husband
No formal education 118 250 1.98(1.38–2.84) 2.60(1.72,3.91)
Formal education 58 245 1 1
Residence
    Urban 43 144 1 1
    Rural 176 397 1.48 (1.01–2.18) 2.02 (1.23–3.34)*
Current marital
status
    Married 168 503 1 1
    Unmarried 51 38 4.02 (2.55–6.33) 11.16 (4.18–29.79)*
Parity
    Primipara 38 110 1 1
    Multipara 181 431 1.22 (0.81–1.83) 1.38 (0.79–2.38)
Membership for WDA
    Yes 36 120 1 1
    No 183 421 1.45 (0.96–2.19) 1.64 (1.01–2.65)*
Fear of COVID-19
    No 33 195 1 1
    Yes 186 346 3.18 (2.11–479) 3.86 (2.31–6.44)*
Lack of transport
    No 175 482 1 1
    Yes 44 59 2.05 (1.34–3.15) 1.54 (0.90–2.64)*

Notes; *significantly associated; 1, reference.

Abbreviations; COR, crude odds ratio; AOR, adjusted odds ratio; COVID-19, coronavirus disease.

Discussion

This study is a community-based study in randomly selected kebeles that includes both urban and rural settings. During pregnancy, childbirth, and the immediate postpartum period, the continuum of maternal health care is crucial. Even though health institutions are relatively accessible in remote areas, a significant number of pregnant women still give birth at home, contrary to the plan of health institution delivery. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and associated factors of home delivery among ANC-booked mothers in their last pregnancy during the era of COVID-19 in Gidan District, Northeastern, Ethiopia.

The prevalence of women who gave birth at home among ANC-booked women was 28.8% (95%CI: 25.7–32.2). This finding is higher than studies conducted in Southern Ethiopia 22.8% [35] and in Bench Maji zone, Ethiopia 21.7% [36]. This difference might be due to the fear of COVID-19 transmissions and interruptions of services [37,38]. In addition, possibly due to internal conflicts (war) in the area, war can result in the distraction of infrastructure like roads, and most of the participants in the study areas are far from the health institutions, so it takes a long time to reach them by walking without an ambulance, and it is difficult to go to a health institution during the war. Scholars indicated that low maternal healthcare service utilization was higher in conflict areas than in non-conflict affected areas [39]. This seems to be an important determinant, which may preclude women from accessing delivery services.

On the other hand, the result of this study is lower than studies from the 2016 Ethiopian Health Survey report (EDHS), where 67.2% of the mothers delivered at home [22], and another Ethiopian pooled prevalence of 66.7% [40]. The possible justification for the difference might be differences in the study area and source population. The current study included only women who had ANC follow-up, while the previous studies included women who did not have ANC follow-up. In addition to this, the decrease in home delivery in the current study could be because the government and other supporting organizations are working strongly to increase institutional delivery service utilization [17,21].

In addition, the strengthening of the health extension program and the implementation of WDA facilitate maternal health care services, including institutional delivery [41]. The establishment of maternal waiting homes also played a greater role (80% of the reduction of maternal deaths) in improving the current reduction in home delivery [42]. This implied that strengthening the above activities would result in a better outcome.

Women from rural dwellers had 2.02 times more odds of delivering at home than women from urban dwellers; this finding is consistent with studies conducted in Ethiopia [31], Uganda [43], and Nigeria [44]. The possible reason might be that rural women were less educated and less exposed to media messages [45]. Inaccessibility of services due to a lack of transportation and long distances to travel to the health institutions. Furthermore, rural women have less decision-making autonomy, less knowledge of pregnancy complications, and less access to information than urban women [23,46].

According to the findings of this study, unmarried women were 11.16 times more likely to deliver at home than married women. This finding is supported by other studies conducted in Jimma [47] and Southern Ethiopia [48]. The reason behind this might be that unmarried women do not receive support from husbands, and the health delivery system of Ethiopia favors married women over unmarried women [30].

Pregnant women whose husbands have no formal education have higher odds of delivering at home compared to those with formal education. This is consistent with studies reported in our country and abroad [19,20,22,49,50]. The possible explanation might be that non-educated husbands are more conservative towards the cultural practices of home delivery. Besides, non-educated husbands are unaware of the difficulties and complications associated with pregnancy and childbirth. As a result, they are less likely to support their wives’ use of maternal health care services [51,52]. It suggests that education is a major key strategy to increase maternal and child health care service utilization.

In this study, the odds of home delivery among women who were not involved in WDA were 1.65 times more likely to deliver at home as compared to women who were involved in WDA. This finding is incongruent with a study conducted in Southern Ethiopia [53]. The possible reason might be that women who are not part of WDA are less likely to discuss their health issues, including place of birth, among each other as well as with other health care providers. Moreover, scholars found that for women who live in an area with advanced WDA networks, the utilization of maternal health care services, including intuitional delivery, has greatly improved [28,29].

The findings of this study revealed that fear of COVID-19 infection was another factor that affected the place of delivery. Women who feared COVID-19 infection had 3.84 times higher odds of delivering at home than women who did not fear COVID-19 infection. This finding was consistent with a study done in India [32]. The reason behind this might be low awareness about the preventive measures for COVID-19. In addition, a study conducted in Italy among pregnant women found that there was a fear of visiting health institutions for delivery because of the COVID-19 infection [54].

Strengths and limitations of the study

The main strength of the current study is that being a community-based study, it might reflect the actual experiences of the women during the study period. Even though all possible strategies were used, such as providing training for data collectors, employing pretests, and using standardized tools, the study might not be free of recall bias due to the data collected from women about their experiences one year ago. However, the cross-sectional nature of the study means that it cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship. Another limitation of the current study is that, because it used only quantitative methods, some of the factors that affect the outcome variable may not have been addressed.

Conclusion

Even though the government tried to lower the rate of home delivery by accessing health institutions in remote areas, implementing WDA, and introducing maternal waiting home utilization, nearly one in every three pregnant women had given birth at home among ANC-booked women in their last pregnancy. Factors such as being a rural resident, husband’s education, unmarried women, not being involved in WDA, and fear of acquiring COVID-19 infection were found to be significant with home delivery. Improving the husband’s educational status, providing information related to health institution delivery benefits during antenatal care, and strengthening the implementation of the women’s development army, particularly among rural and unmarried women, would decrease home childbirth practices. Future researchers interested in the area should address why ANC-booked pregnant women preferred to deliver at home through a qualitative approach, which might have a tremendous effect on institutional service delivery utilization.

Supporting information

S1 File. Amharic version questionnaires.

(DOCX)

S2 File. English version questionnaire.

(DOCX)

S3 File. Data used for analysis including data on home delivery and associated factors.

(XLS)

Acknowledgments

We thank the University of Gondar for approving the ethical clearance. We are also pleased to extend our appreciation to the Gidan District administrative offices, study participants, data collectors, and supervisors.

Abbreviations

ANC

Antenatal Care

AOR

Adjusted Odds Rati

CI

Confidence Intervals

COR

Crude Odds Ratio

COVID-19

Coronavirus disease

EDHS

Ethiopian Demographic, and Health Survey

LICs

Low-Income Countries

OR

Odds Ratio

PNC

Postnatal Care

WDA

Women Development Army

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and Supporting Information file.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Fenta SM, Ayenew G, Getahun BE: Magnitude of antenatal care service uptake and associated factors among pregnant women: analysis of the 2016 Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey. BMJ open 2021, 11(4):e043904. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Johnston R: Arsenic and the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Arsen Res Glob Sustain-Proc 6th Int Congr Arsen Environ AS 2016, 2016:12–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Organization WH: Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2017: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and the United Nations Population Division: executive summary. In.: World Health Organization; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ganchimeg T, Ota E, Morisaki N, Laopaiboon M, Lumbiganon P, Zhang J, et al. : Pregnancy and childbirth outcomes among adolescent mothers: a W orld H ealth O rganization multicountry study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology; 2014, 121:40–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Berhan Y, Berhan A: Skilled health personnel attended delivery as a proxy indicator for maternal and perinatal mortality: a systematic review. Ethiopian journal of health sciences 2014, 24:69–80. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v24i0.7s [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Berhan Y, Berhan A: Antenatal care as a means of increasing birth in the health facility and reducing maternal mortality: a systematic review. Ethiopian journal of health sciences 2014, 24:93–104. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v24i0.9s [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Organization WH: Making pregnancy safer: the critical role of the skilled attendant: a joint statement by WHO, ICM and FIGO: World health organization; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ethiopia C: Ethiopian demographic health survey, key indicators report. Maryland, USA: The DHS Program ICF Rockville; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Montagu D, Yamey G, Visconti A, Harding A, Yoong J: Where do poor women in developing countries give birth? A multi-country analysis of demographic and health survey data. PloS one 2011, 6(2):e17155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ali H, Mahmood QK, Jalil A, Fischer F: Women’s Status and its Association With Home Delivery: A Cross-Sectional Study Conducted in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Maternal and child health journal 2022:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s10995-021-03294-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Arba MA, Darebo TD, Koyira MM: Institutional delivery service utilization among women from rural districts of Wolaita and Dawro zones, southern Ethiopia; a community based cross-sectional study. PloS one 2016, 11(3):e0151082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Health FMo: Management protocol on selected obstetrics topics. In.: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chinkhumba J, De Allegri M, Muula AS, Robberstad B: Maternal and perinatal mortality by place of delivery in sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. BMC public health 2014, 14(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Thind A, Mohani A, Banerjee K, Hagigi F: Where to deliver? Analysis of choice of delivery location from a national survey in India. BMC public health 2008, 8(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.NICEF:. Maternal and newborn health and COVID-19. UNICEF Data. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.ICF E: Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey 2019: Key Indicators. Rockville, Maryland, USA: EPHI and ICF. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kasaye HK, Endale ZM, Gudayu TW, Desta MS: Home delivery among antenatal care booked women in their last pregnancy and associated factors: community-based cross sectional study in Debremarkos town, North West Ethiopia, January 2016. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2017, 17(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wodaynew T, Fekecha B, Abdisa B: Magnitude of home delivery and associated factors among antenatal care booked mothers in Delanta District, South Wollo Zone, North East Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study, March 2018. Int J Womens Health Wellness 2018, 4(2):1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tessema ZT, Tiruneh SA: Spatio-temporal distribution and associated factors of home delivery in Ethiopia. Further multilevel and spatial analysis of Ethiopian demographic and health surveys 2005–2016. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2020, 20(1):1–16. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-02986-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kifle MM, Kesete HF, Gaim HT, Angosom GS, Araya MB: Health facility or home delivery? Factors influencing the choice of delivery place among mothers living in rural communities of Eritrea. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 2018, 37(1):1–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Delibo D, Damena M, Gobena T, Balcha B: Status of home delivery and its associated factors among women who gave birth within the last 12 months in east Badawacho District, Hadiya zone, Southern Ethiopia. BioMed Research International 2020, 2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/4916421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chernet AG, Dumga KT, Cherie KT: Home delivery practices and associated factors in Ethiopia. Journal of reproduction & infertility 2019, 20(2):102. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Amano A, Gebeyehu A, Birhanu Z: Institutional delivery service utilization in Munisa Woreda, South East Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2012, 12(1):1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ayele G, Tilahune M, Merdikyos B, Animaw W, Taye W: Prevalence and associated factors of home delivery in Arbaminch Zuria district, southern Ethiopia: community based cross sectional study. Science 2015, 3(1):6–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gidan Disrict Community Health Information System report. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tsegay Y, Gebrehiwot T, Goicolea I, Edin K, Lemma H, Sebastian MS: Determinants of antenatal and delivery care utilization in Tigray region, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. International journal for equity in health 2013, 12(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tadesse E: Antenatal care service utilization of pregnant women attending antenatal care in public hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic period. International journal of women’s health 2020, 12:1181. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S287534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Admasu K-B, editor.: Health sector transformation plan (2015/16–2019/20). Ministry of Health Addis Ababa 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Negero MG, Mitike YB, Worku AG, Abota TL: Skilled delivery service utilization and its association with the establishment of Women’s Health Development Army in Yeky district, South West Ethiopia: a multilevel analysis. BMC research notes 2018, 11(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Senderowitz J: Making reproductive health services youth friendly: FOCUS on Young Adults; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Alemi Kebede KH, Teklehaymanot AN: Factors associated with institutional delivery service utilization in Ethiopia. International journal of women’s health 2016, 8:463. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S109498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ghosh A, Nath R, Islam N: Choice of Place of Delivery during COVID-19 Pandemic: Observation from a Community-Based Survey in Rural India. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Desta AA, Woldearegay TW, Gebremeskel E, Alemayehu M, Getachew T, et al. : Impacts of COVID-19 on essential health services in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: A pre-post study. Plos one 2021, 16(8):e0256330. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Belsley DA: Conditioning Diagnostics Collinearity and Weak Data in Regression. Journal-operation Research Society 1993, 44:88–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hailu D, Tadele H, Tadesse BT, Alemayehu A, Abuka T, Woldegebriel F, et al. : Home delivery practice and its predictors in South Ethiopia. PloS one 2021, 16(8):e0254696. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tadele N, Lamaro T: Utilization of institutional delivery service and associated factors in Bench Maji zone, Southwest Ethiopia: community based, cross sectional study. BMC health services research 2017, 17(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Temesgen K, Wakgari N, Debelo BT, Tafa B, Alemu G, Wondimu F, et al. : Maternal health care services utilization amidstCOVID-19 pandemic in West Shoa zone, central Ethiopia. PLoS One 2021, 16(3):e0249214. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pant S, Koirala S, Subedi M: Access to maternal health services during COVID-19. Europasian Journal of Medical Sciences 2020, 2(2):46–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Akseer N, Wright J, Tasic H, Everett K, Scudder E, Amsalu R, et al. : Women, children and adolescents in conflict countries: an assessment of inequalities in intervention coverage and survival. BMJ global health 2020, 5(1):e002214. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ayenew AA, Nigussie AA, Zewdu BF: Childbirth at home and associated factors in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Public Health 2021, 79(1):1–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Assefa Y, Gelaw YA, Hill PS, Taye BW, Van Damme W: Community health extension program of Ethiopia, 2003–2018: successes and challenges toward universal coverage for primary healthcare services. Globalization and Health 2019, 15(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12992-019-0470-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Dadi TL, Bekele BB, Kasaye HK, Nigussie T: Role of maternity waiting homes in the reduction of maternal death and stillbirth in developing countries and its contribution for maternal death reduction in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC health services research 2018, 18(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kalule-Sabiti I, Amoateng AY, Ngake M: The effect of socio-demographic factors on the utilization of maternal health care services in Uganda. African Population Studies 2014, 28(1):515–525. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Babalola S, Fatusi A: Determinants of use of maternal health services in Nigeria-looking beyond individual and household factors. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2009, 9(1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-43 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mei D, Xiu C, Feng X, Wei Y: Study of the School–Residence Spatial Relationship and the Characteristics of Travel-to-School Distance in Shenyang. Sustainability 2019, 11(16):4432. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Alemayehu M, Meskele M: Health care decision making autonomy of women from rural districts of Southern Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. International journal of women’s health 2017, 9:213. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S131139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Girma F, Jira C, Girma B: Health services utilization and associated factors in jimma zone, South west ethiopia. Ethiopian journal of health sciences 2011. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bitew Workie S, Mekonen N, Michael MW, Molla G, Abrha S, Zema Z, et al. : Modern Health Service Utilization and Associated Factors among Adults in Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2021, 2021. doi: 10.1155/2021/8835780 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Idris S, Gwarzo U, Shehu A: Determinants of place of delivery among women in a semi-urban settlement in Zaria, northern Nigeria. Annals of African medicine 2006, 5(2):68–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Agha S, Carton TW: Determinants of institutional delivery in rural Jhang, Pakistan. International journal for equity in health 2011, 10(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Nduka I, Nduka E: Determinants of noninstitutional deliveries in an urban community in Nigeria. Journal of Medical Investigations and Practice 2014, 9(3):102. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Adam IF: The influence of maternal health education on the place of delivery in conflict settings of Darfur, Sudan. Conflict and Health 2015, 9(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13031-015-0057-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wondimu MS, Woldesemayat EM: Determinants of Home Delivery Among Women in Rural Pastoralist Community of Hamar District, Southern Ethiopia: A Case–Control Study. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020, 13:2159. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S268977 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.de Freytas-Tamura K: Pregnant and scared of ‘Covid Hospitals,’they’re giving birth at home. The New York Times 2020. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Pracheth Raghuveer

21 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-10889Home delivery and associated factors among antenatal care booked women in their last pregnancy in Northeast EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr.Desale Bihonegn Asmamaw ,

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 17 June,2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pracheth Raghuveer, MD, DNB

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 the following financial disclosure: 

"NA"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

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

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

"No funding available"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear author,

Please revise the manuscript as per the comments made by the reviewers.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Background section-Page 4, Line 51

Of this two-thirds of the deaths from SSA

I think you mean; Of this two-thirds of the deaths were from SSA

Page 5, line 76,77; Another studies in Ethiopia revealed that many women 77 unpredictably did not deliver in health facilities despite antenatal care

You should write as Another study from Ethiopia revealed that many women 77 unpredictably did not deliver in health facilities despite antenatal care

Study variables-Page 7, Line 121, 122

When a women gave birth at her home or others’ home 122 (neighbor, relatives, or family) or when a birth takes place outsides of health institutions.

You should write, When a woman gave birth at her home or others’ home 122 (neighbor, relatives, or family) or when a birth took place outsides of health institutions

Result section-Page 10, Line 166, 167

306 (40.3%) of participants fall within the age category of 167 26-30 years.

You should write, 306 (40.3%) of participants fell within the age category of 167 26-30 years.

Page 10, Line 172, 173

About 532(70%) of the mothers were feared 173 COVID-19 infection

You should write, About 532(70%) of the mothers feared 173 COVID-19 infection

Discussion-Pg 11, 12, Line-194, 195

a significant number of pregnant women still give birth at home, contrary to plane of health institution delivery.

You should write-a significant number of pregnant women still give birth at home, contrary to plan of health institution delivery.

Pg 12, Line-199, 200

This difference might be due to the effect of COVID-19 pandemic at which women had high-perceived severity.

Rephrase this line

Pg 12, Line-206-209

This lower prevalence might be that time and study population difference as the current study included only those individuals who had ANC follow up which is one of the most known determinants of home delivery and the government’s ongoing effort to improve the health care system

Rephrase this statement

Pg 12, Line-212, 213

This implied that strengthening the above activities will be resulted a better outcome.

You should write-This implied that strengthening the above activities will result in a better outcome.

Pg 13, Line-218-220

Moreover, women form rural areas were limited decision-making autonomy, lack of knowledge of pregnancy complication and limited access to information than urban women

You should write-Moreover, women from rural areas with limited decision-making autonomy, lack of knowledge of pregnancy complications, and limited access to information from urban women

Pg 13, Line-229, 230

Besides, non-educated husbands do not aware the difficulty and complication happen during pregnancy and childbirth.

You should write-Besides, non-educated husbands are unaware of the difficulty and complications associated with pregnancy and childbirth.

Pg 13, Line-234, 235

This finding 235 is in congruent with a study conducted in Southern Ethiopia [47],

Write a full stop at the end.

Pg 13, Line-235- 237

The possible reason might be women who did not involve in WDA are less likely to discuss with health care providers and with each other about their health including where to give birth

The possible reason might be that women who are not part of WDA are less likely to discuss their health issues, including place of birth among each other as well as other health care providers.

Pg 14, Line-240-246

The finding of this study revealed that fear of COVID-19 infection were another factor that affect place of delivery. Women who were feared of COVID-19 infection were 3.84 times more odds to deliver at home than women who were not feared COVID-19 infection, this finding was consistent with a study done in India. The reason behind might be low awareness about the preventive measures of COVID-19, in addition, a study conducted in Italy among pregnant women found that there were fear of visiting health facilities for delivery because of fearing COVID-19 infection

You should write-The finding of this study revealed that fear of COVID-19 infection was another factor that affected the place of delivery. Women who feared COVID-19 infection had 3.84 times more odds to deliver at home than women who did not fear COVID-19 infection. This finding was consistent with a study done in India. The reason behind this might be low awareness about the preventive measures for COVID-19. In addition, a study conducted in Italy among pregnant women found that there was fear of visiting health facilities for delivery because of COVID-19 infection.

Strength and limitations-Pg 14, Line 250, 251

In addition, May introduce a 251 recall bias due to data was collected from women about their experience since 1 year back.

You should write-In addition, there might be a recall bias due to data collected from women about their experiences 1 year back.

Conclusion-Pg 14, Line-258, 259

improving the husband’s educational status, providing information related to health institution delivery benefits

You should write-Improving the husband’s educational status, providing information related to health institution delivery benefits

Page-14, 15, Line-261-264

Future researchers interested in the area better to address why pregnant women preferred to deliver in the home though qualitative approach, which might have a tremendous effect on institutional services delivery utilization.

You should write-Future researchers interested in the area better address why pregnant women preferred to deliver in the home through a qualitative approach, which might have a tremendous effect on institutional service delivery utilization.

I think you should look into table 3-home delivery variable. Were there no home deliveries as there are no numbers mentioned under the YES home-delivery variable?

Reviewer #2: Paragraph 2, page five mentions: While home delivery is usually the cheapest option in resource poor settings like Ethiopia, it is also the most risky, due to the possibility of infection or lack of equipment in case of complications arise.

Comment:

Please substantiate why this is the cheapest option? What if any measures are taken by the government/NGOs to help overcome this to enable institutional deliveries? Are there any rates of how many women in the study area do access ANC?

2. The fear of COVID-19 was assessed. However, it is not clear if this was in relation to acquiring the disease per se during pregnancy or was pertinent in the context of accessing healthcare services during delivery and contracting the disease. Please clarify for reader's comprehension.

3. Paragraph 1, page 12, line 201: 'In addition, possibly due to 201 internal conflicts in the area.' This statement does not seem complete. Also, this seems to be an important determinant which may preclude women from accessing delivery services.

4. In the conclusion, particular focus needs to also be given to the fact that one of the highest odds of home deliveries were among unmarried women. There is mention elsewhere that married women were given preference at the health centers. An educational program targeting healthcare workers to work with empathy and to discharge their duties without bias and/or discrimination may encourage more women to access these services and consequently, reduce maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. If such provisions are already in place through the WDA, they can be highlighted as well.

5. Please clarify if in Table 1 the 'single' mothers under marital status implies 'unmarried women'? Also, the next variable needs to be corrected to 'widowed' as it is at present, 'windowed.' A thorough grammar and spell check is suggested.

6. Married women in Table 1 is 684 but in table 3 is 671. Why the discrepancy? Also, were divorced and separated women clubbed with unmarried women? Please clarify. Please check all variables.

7. There seem to be differences in the frequency between tables. Eg: Marital status variable in Table 1 does not match that in table 3.

**********

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: Yes: Dr Saida Abrar

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 Dec 5;18(12):e0295220. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295220.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Jul 2022

Authors’ response to the editor and reviewer’s comments

Title: Home delivery and associated factors among antenatal care booked women in their last pregnancy in Northeast Ethiopia.

Authors

Desale Bihonegn Asmamaw (desalebihonegn1988@gmail.com)

Yohannes Ayanaw Habitu ((yohaneshabitu@gmail.com)

Eskedar Getie Mekonnen (eskedargetie18@gmail.com)

Wubshet Debebe Negash (wubshetdn@gmail.com)

Date: 28/06/2022

Authors’ Point-by-point response to editor and reviewer comments

We are very grateful to both the editor and reviewers for your comments and concerns. All the concerns raised so far will have an undeniable impact on improving the quality and readability of our scholarly work. Appreciating your effort and valuable comments, we have provided possible reflections on the raised concerns and questions. Kindly find our reflections here.

S. no. Comments

Reviewer 1 comments

1 Background section-Page 4, Line 51

Of this two-thirds of the deaths from SSA

I think you mean; Of this two-thirds of the deaths were from SSA

Authors response

Thank you for your observations. This has been corrected. Kindly see page 4, line 51-52.

2 Page 5, line 76,77; Another study in Ethiopia revealed that many women 77 unpredictably did not deliver in health facilities despite antenatal care

You should write as Another study from Ethiopia revealed that many women 77 unpredictably did not deliver in health facilities despite antenatal care

Authors response

Comment accepted. This has been modified. kindly see page 5, line 76-77.

3 Study variables-Page 7, Line 121, 122

When a women gave birth at her home or others’ home 122 (neighbor, relatives, or family) or when a birth takes place outsides of health institutions.

You should write, When a woman gave birth at her home or others’ home 122 (neighbor, relatives, or family) or when a birth took place outsides of health institutions

Authors response

Thank you for your observation. This has been corrected. Kindly see page 7, line 121-124.

4 Result section-Page 10, Line 166, 167

306 (40.3%) of participants fall within the age category of 167 26-30 years.

You should write, 306 (40.3%) of participants fell within the age category of 167 26-30 years. Thank you for your comments and your comment is accepted. Kindly see page 10, line 175-177.

5 Page 10, Line 172, 173

About 532(70%) of the mothers were feared 173 COVID-19 infection

You should write, About 532(70%) of the mothers feared 173 COVID-19 infection Thank you for your observations. This has been addressed. Kindly see page 10, line 182-83.

6 Discussion-Pg 11, 12, Line-194, 195

a significant number of pregnant women still give birth at home, contrary to plane of health institution delivery.

You should write-a significant number of pregnant women still give birth at home, contrary to plan of health institution delivery. Comment accepted. The mistake has been corrected. Kindly see page 11, line 203-204.

7 Pg 12, Line-199, 200

This difference might be due to the effect of COVID-19 pandemic at which women had high-perceived severity.

Rephrase this line Thank you for your comments and your comment is accepted. This has been addressed accordingly. Kindly see page 12, line 210-214.

8 g 12, Line-206-209

This lower prevalence might be that time and study population difference as the current study included only those individuals who had ANC follow up which is one of the most known determinants of home delivery and the government’s ongoing effort to improve the health care system

Rephrase this statement Thank you for your suggestions. This has been rephrased. Kindly see page 12. Line 220-223

9 Pg 12, Line-212, 213

This implied that strengthening the above activities will be resulted a better outcome.

You should write-This implied that strengthening the above activities will result in a better outcome. Thank you for your observations. This has been addressed. Kindly see page 12, line 226-227.

10 Pg 13, Line-218-220

Moreover, women form rural areas were limited decision-making autonomy, lack of knowledge of pregnancy complication and limited access to information than urban women

You should write-Moreover, women from rural areas with limited decision-making autonomy, lack of knowledge of pregnancy complications, and limited access to information from urban women Thank you for your suggestions. This has been modified accordingly. Page 13, line 232-234.

11 Pg 13, Line-229, 230

Besides, non-educated husbands do not aware the difficulty and complication happen during pregnancy and childbirth.

You should write-Besides, non-educated husbands are unaware of the difficulty and complications associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Thank you for your comments. This has been addressed. Kindly see page 13, line 243-245.

12 Pg 13, Line-234, 235

This finding 235 is in congruent with a study conducted in Southern Ethiopia [47],

Write a full stop at the end. Thank you for your observations. The grammatical error has been addressed, kindly see page 13, line 249-250.

13 Pg 13, Line-235- 237

The possible reason might be women who did not involve in WDA are less likely to discuss with health care providers and with each other about their health including where to give birth

The possible reason might be that women who are not part of WDA are less likely to discuss their health issues, including place of birth among each other as well as other health care providers.

14 Pg 14, Line-240-246

The finding of this study revealed that fear of COVID-19 infection were another factor that affect place of delivery. Women who were feared of COVID-19 infection were 3.84 times more odds to deliver at home than women who were not feared COVID-19 infection, this finding was consistent with a study done in India. The reason behind might be low awareness about the preventive measures of COVID-19, in addition, a study conducted in Italy among pregnant women found that there were fear of visiting health facilities for delivery because of fearing COVID-19 infection

You should write-The finding of this study revealed that fear of COVID-19 infection was another factor that affected the place of delivery. Women who feared COVID-19 infection had 3.84 times more odds to deliver at home than women who did not fear COVID-19 infection. This finding was consistent with a study done in India. The reason behind this might be low awareness about the preventive measures for COVID-19. In addition, a study conducted in Italy among pregnant women found that there was fear of visiting health facilities for delivery because of COVID-19 infection. Thank you for your suggestions. This has been addressed. Kindly see page 14, line 255-260.

15 Strength and limitations-Pg 14, Line 250, 251

In addition, May introduce a 251 recall bias due to data was collected from women about their experience since 1 year back.

You should write-In addition; there might be a recall bias due to data collected from women about their experiences 1 year back. Thank you for your suggestions. We have corrected it. Kindly see page 14, line 263-265.

16 Conclusion-Pg 14, Line-258, 259

improving the husband’s educational status, providing information related to health institution delivery benefits

You should write-Improving the husband’s educational status, providing information related to health institution delivery benefits Thank you for your observations. The grammar error has been corrected. Kindly see page 14, line 272-273.

17 Page-14, 15, Line-261-264

Future researchers interested in the area better to address why pregnant women preferred to deliver in the home though qualitative approach, which might have a tremendous effect on institutional services delivery utilization.

You should write-Future researchers interested in the area better address why pregnant women preferred to deliver in the home through a qualitative approach, which might have a tremendous effect on institutional service delivery utilization. Thank you for your comments. This has been modified accordingly. Kindly see page 15, line 280-283.

18 I think you should look into table 3-home delivery variable. Were there no home deliveries as there are no numbers mentioned under the YES home-delivery variable? Thank you for you observations. This has been addressed. Kindly see table 3.

Reviewer 2 comments Authors response

1 Please substantiate why this is the cheapest option? What if any measures are taken by the government/NGOs to help overcome this to enable institutional deliveries? Are there any rates of how many women in the study area do access ANC? Thank you for your comments; we modified it according to our research questions. Kindly see page 5, line 72-74.

2 The fear of COVID-19 was assessed. However, it is not clear if this was in relation to acquiring the disease per se during pregnancy or was pertinent in the context of accessing healthcare services during delivery and contracting the disease. Please clarify for reader's comprehension. Comment accepted. This has been addressed. Kindly see page 7, line 128-130.

3 Paragraph 1, page 12, line 201: 'In addition, possibly due to 201 internal conflicts in the area.' This statement does not seem complete. Also, this seems to be an important determinant which may preclude women from accessing delivery services. Comment accepted and necessary modifications have been considered. Kindly see page 12, line 202-208.

4 In the conclusion, particular focus needs to also be given to the fact that one of the highest odds of home deliveries were among unmarried women. There is mention elsewhere that married women were given preference at the health centers. An educational program targeting healthcare workers to work with empathy and to discharge their duties without bias and/or discrimination may encourage more women to access these services and consequently, reduce maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. If such provisions are already in place through the WDA, they can be highlighted as well. Thank you for your suggestions, this has been addressed and rewritten. See the updated version of the manuscript.

5 Please clarify if in Table 1 the 'single' mothers under marital status implies 'unmarried women'? Also, the next variable needs to be corrected to 'widowed' as it is at present, 'windowed.' A thorough grammar and spell check is suggested. Thank you for your observations. The spelling mistake has been corrected. Single mothers were categorized as unmarried women [1, 2].

6 Married women in Table 1 is 684 but in table 3 is 671. Why the discrepancy? Also, were divorced and separated women clubbed with unmarried women? Please clarify. Please check all variables. Thank you for your observations. The difference in the marital status frequency between tables 1 and 3 is a typing error. The mistake has been corrected. We categorized the marital status based on the current marital status (marital status at the time of the data collection). So, divorced and separated women clubbed with unmarried women. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

7 There seem to be differences in the frequency between tables. Eg: Marital status variable in Table 1 does not match that in table 3. Comment accepted. These have been typing errors and the mistake has been corrected in the updated version of the manuscript.

Reference

1. Fikre AA, Demissie M: Prevalence of institutional delivery and associated factors in Dodota Woreda (district), Oromia regional state, Ethiopia. Reproductive health 2012, 9(1):1-6.

2. Teshale AB, Tesema GA: Prevalence and associated factors of delayed first antenatal care booking among reproductive age women in Ethiopia; a multilevel analysis of EDHS 2016 data. PloS one 2020, 15(7):e0235538.

Thank you very much!

Attachment

Submitted filename: point by point response.docx

Decision Letter 1

Pracheth Raghuveer

3 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-10889R1Home delivery and associated factors among antenatal care booked women in their last pregnancy in Northeast EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Desale Bihonegn Asmamaw,

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.

The reviewers think that the manuscript needs further revision. . 

Please submit your revised manuscript by 10th August, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pracheth Raghuveer, MD, DNB

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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)

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

**********

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: No

**********

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: dear author

You have failed to address all my previous queries which were previously highlighted. Kindly address them pointwise and make sure you enter them in details.

Background section-Page 4, Line 51

Of this two-thirds of the deaths from SSA

I think you mean; Of this two-thirds of the deaths were from SSA

Page 5, line 76,77; Another studies in Ethiopia revealed that many women 77 unpredictably did not deliver in health facilities despite antenatal care

You should write as Another study from Ethiopia revealed that many women 77 unpredictably did not deliver in health facilities despite antenatal care

Study variables-Page 7, Line 121, 122

When a women gave birth at her home or others’ home 122 (neighbor, relatives, or family) or when a birth takes place outsides of health institutions.

You should write, When a woman gave birth at her home or others’ home 122 (neighbor, relatives, or family) or when a birth took place outsides of health institutions

Result section-Page 10, Line 166, 167

306 (40.3%) of participants fall within the age category of 167 26-30 years.

You should write, 306 (40.3%) of participants fell within the age category of 167 26-30 years.

Page 10, Line 172, 173

About 532(70%) of the mothers were feared 173 COVID-19 infection

You should write, About 532(70%) of the mothers feared 173 COVID-19 infection

Discussion-Pg 11, 12, Line-194, 195

a significant number of pregnant women still give birth at home, contrary to plane of health institution delivery.

You should write-a significant number of pregnant women still give birth at home, contrary to plan of health institution delivery.

Pg 12, Line-199, 200

This difference might be due to the effect of COVID-19 pandemic at which women had high-perceived severity.

Rephrase this line

Pg 12, Line-206-209

This lower prevalence might be that time and study population difference as the current study included only those individuals who had ANC follow up which is one of the most known determinants of home delivery and the government’s ongoing effort to improve the health care system

Rephrase this statement

Pg 12, Line-212, 213

This implied that strengthening the above activities will be resulted a better outcome.

You should write-This implied that strengthening the above activities will result in a better outcome.

Pg 13, Line-218-220

Moreover, women form rural areas were limited decision-making autonomy, lack of knowledge of pregnancy complication and limited access to information than urban women

You should write-Moreover, women from rural areas with limited decision-making autonomy, lack of knowledge of pregnancy complications, and limited access to information from urban women

Pg 13, Line-229, 230

Besides, non-educated husbands do not aware the difficulty and complication happen during pregnancy and childbirth.

You should write-Besides, non-educated husbands are unaware of the difficulty and complications associated with pregnancy and childbirth.

Pg 13, Line-234, 235

This finding 235 is in congruent with a study conducted in Southern Ethiopia [47],

Write a full stop at the end.

Pg 13, Line-235- 237

The possible reason might be women who did not involve in WDA are less likely to discuss with health care providers and with each other about their health including where to give birth

The possible reason might be that women who are not part of WDA are less likely to discuss their health issues, including place of birth among each other as well as other health care providers.

Pg 14, Line-240-246

The finding of this study revealed that fear of COVID-19 infection were another factor that affect place of delivery. Women who were feared of COVID-19 infection were 3.84 times more odds to deliver at home than women who were not feared COVID-19 infection, this finding was consistent with a study done in India. The reason behind might be low awareness about the preventive measures of COVID-19, in addition, a study conducted in Italy among pregnant women found that there were fear of visiting health facilities for delivery because of fearing COVID-19 infection

You should write-The finding of this study revealed that fear of COVID-19 infection was another factor that affected the place of delivery. Women who feared COVID-19 infection had 3.84 times more odds to deliver at home than women who did not fear COVID-19 infection. This finding was consistent with a study done in India. The reason behind this might be low awareness about the preventive measures for COVID-19. In addition, a study conducted in Italy among pregnant women found that there was fear of visiting health facilities for delivery because of COVID-19 infection.

Strength and limitations-Pg 14, Line 250, 251

In addition, May introduce a 251 recall bias due to data was collected from women about their experience since 1 year back.

You should write-In addition, there might be a recall bias due to data collected from women about their experiences 1 year back.

Conclusion-Pg 14, Line-258, 259

improving the husband’s educational status, providing information related to health institution delivery benefits

You should write-Improving the husband’s educational status, providing information related to health institution delivery benefits

Page-14, 15, Line-261-264

Future researchers interested in the area better to address why pregnant women preferred to deliver in the home though qualitative approach, which might have a tremendous effect on institutional services delivery utilization.

You should write-Future researchers interested in the area better address why pregnant women preferred to deliver in the home through a qualitative approach, which might have a tremendous effect on institutional service delivery utilization.

I think you should look into table 3-home delivery variable. Were there no home deliveries as there are no numbers mentioned under the YES home-delivery variable?

**********

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: Yes: SAIDA ABRAR

**********

[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.

Decision Letter 2

Pracheth Raghuveer

16 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-10889R2Home delivery and associated factors among antenatal care booked women in their last pregnancy in Northeast EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Asmamaw

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.

Kindly address the reviewer's comments

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at 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,

Pracheth Raghuveer, MD, DNB

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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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: All queries are effectively addressed and i recommend it for publication

The highlighted grammatical mistakes in the introduction, methodology, result sections are rectified.

All the journal requirements are satisfied and met

Reviewer #3: Dear Plos ONE team of editorials, thank you for the chance given to me to review a manuscript titled “Home delivery and associated factors among antenatal care booked women in their last 2 pregnancy in Northeast Ethiopia”. The following are my comments;

A. General Comments

• Refine the title. The title should not at least briefly explain the whole content of the manuscript. You can use absorbing and attractive findings to be your title.

• Tense flaws i.e., the background section and the result section.

• Incorrect use of words E.g., the “…was delivered” can be written as “…had given birth”

• Update the background with new initiatives. E.g. MOH new ANC guideline and other maternal initiatives of the ministry.

• You can frame the whole section of the manuscript “…. discontinuity in the continuum of maternal health care”

• Tense, grammar, content of the sections, presentation needs further emphasis.

• Paragraph should not be one sentence.

B. Specific Comments

• What is the motive behind booking of ANC? Why the book first and then fail to trust the institutional delivery? Would you explain it before and after the introduction of COVID 19?

• Differentiate on your literature between the ANC full care and Last booked ANC care throughout the document.

• Where did you include in the outcome if a mother give birth on her way to health facility?

• What is known about booking and then leaving the continuum of care? What is unknown? And what do you want to fill by this study?

• Why multi stage for a district? The sampling procedure is not clear to the reader. Is that multi stage? Is that stratified? Is that SRS?

• Why don’t you include the three delays?

• You had visited three times. What is the day time you have visited the home?

• The data quality assurance should be clearer at the three stage of the process and how it was ensured?

• When did they collect the data? Is that immediately at giving birth, or after one month of their giving birth…etc?

• Confidence interval should follow your percentage?

• Why the result section was narrower than the discussion section?

• Revisit for the contents of the sections in general

• Revisits the statistics again for frequency, univariate, binary and multiple logistic regression e.g. Why P value < 0.05? P value < 0.025?

• Finally, you can cross tabulate women who fear infection of COVID 19 and home delivery. Why? You can even reframe the title by this.

Regards,

**********

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: Yes: Saida Abrar

Reviewer #3: 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 Dec 5;18(12):e0295220. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295220.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


20 Nov 2022

Authors’ response to the editor and reviewer’s comments

Title: Impact of fear of COVID-19 infection on home delivery among antenatal care booked women in Northeast Ethiopia

Authors

Desale Bihonegn Asmamaw (desalebihonegn1988@gmail.com)

Yohannes Ayanaw Habitu ((yohaneshabitu@gmail.com)

Eskedar Getie Mekonnen (eskedargetie18@gmail.com)

Wubshet Debebe Negash (wubshetdn@gmail.com)

Date: 20/112022

Authors’ Point-by-point response to editor and reviewer comments

Dear reviewer, we would like to extend our deepest appreciation for devoting your time to reviewing our manuscript entitled “impact of fear of COVID-19 infection on home delivery among antenatal care booked women in Northeast Ethiopia ". There has been a major revision of this manuscript (Abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions). The whole structure of the manuscript has been revised. We hope now the manuscript is clear and more acceptable than its previous version. We have tried to present the paper in the proper manner according to your comment on what to suppose to do so. For this, here we have given our responses to each of the concerns you raised. Again, we would like to remind our strongest gratitude for your effort in the improvement of this manuscript, and all the points were addressed in the point-by-point response.

General comments of the reviewer

Reviewer comments: Refine the title. The title should not at least briefly explain the whole content of the manuscript. You can use absorbing and attractive findings to be your title.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestion, this has been modified according to the findings, kindly see the updated version of the title.

Reviewer comments: Tense flaws i.e., the background section and the result section.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comments, this has been edited, kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: Incorrect use of words E.g., the “…was delivered” can be written as “…had given birth”

Authors response: Thank you for your observations, this has been addressed. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: Update the background with new initiatives. E.g. MOH new ANC guideline and other maternal initiatives of the ministry.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comments, this has been addressed. Kindly see the updated version of the introduction.

Reviewer comments: You can frame the whole section of the manuscript “…. discontinuity in the continuum of maternal health care

Authors response: Dear reviewer, thank you for the comments and suggestions, this has been modified accordingly. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: Tense, grammar, the content of the sections, and presentation needs further emphasis.

Authors response: Thank you for your observation and suggestions. The entire article has been read and corrected by a native English speaker. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: Paragraph should not be one sentence.

Authors response: Thank you for your observations and suggestions. This has been addressed; kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Specific comments

Reviewer comments: What is the motive behind booking of ANC? Why the book first and then fail to trust the institutional delivery? Would you explain it before and after the introduction of COVID 19?

Authors response: Thank you for the comments and observations. In fact, pregnant women who had ANC visits are expected to give birth at health institutions, there are studies that found that pregnant women who had ANC visits gave birth at home (drop out from the continuum of maternal health care) [1, 2]. Home birth after ANC is a major public health issue in Ethiopia, despite the fact that few studies on the determinants of the practice have been conducted [1]. We tried to explain it before and after the introduction of COVID-19. Kindly the updated version of the introduction and limitation section.

Reviewer comments: Differentiate your literature between the ANC full care and Last booked ANC care throughout the document.

Authors response: Thank you for your suggestion, this has been differentiated. Kindly see the updated version of the document.

Reviewer comments: Where did you include in the outcome if a mother give birth on her way to health facility?

Authors response: Home delivery was defined as any birth that had taken place in the woman’s or others’ home, while deliveries that occurred in governmental health posts, health centers, hospitals, private clinics and hospitals, and NG health facilities were grouped as facility-based deliveries. If a mother gives birth on her way to health facilities, she was considered a home delivery [2].

Reviewer comments: What is known about booking and then leaving the continuum of care? What is unknown? And what do you want to fill by this study?

Authors response: Ethiopia strives to end maternal and neonatal mortalities through increased production of skilled professionals on maternal and child health, collaboration with different governmental and non-governmental organizations, increased budget allocation, and give special emphasis. In Ethiopia according to the 2016 EDHS report, 62% of women were booked for ANC and only 26% of pregnant women had given birth at health institutions. There are variety of literature reporting factors that affect the continuum of maternal health care [2, 4-10], but there is no adequate literature explaining why ANC-booked women prefer home deliveries and the impact of fear of COVID-19 infection on home delivery. This leaves maternal morbidity and mortality as a public health problem. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the impact of fear of COVID-19 on home delivery among women who had booked ANC. Kindly see the updated version of the introduction.

Reviewer comments: Why multi stage for a district? The sampling procedure is not clear to the reader. Is that multi stage? Is that stratified? Is that SRS?

Authors response: Multistage sampling was employed to select study subjects. First, all kebeles in the District were stratified in to urban and rural. From 23 kebeles stratified into two (21 rural kebeles and two urban kebele), six rural and one urban kebeles were selected by simple random sampling technique using the lottery method. Mothers in the sampled kebeles selected by using simple random sampling technique (open Epi Random Program version 3) [11-13]. Kindly see page 8, line 119-130, and figure 1.

Reviewer comments: You had visited three times. What is the day time you have visited the home?

Authors’ response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. The data was collected from home to home; the data collectors visited the homes on working days (Monday to Friday) because, in the Ethiopian context, almost all rural women and most urban women go to church (mostly orthodox) and market on Saturday and Sunday. The data collectors returned to the home if they did not find the participants at the time. When the interviewers failed to find the eligible respondent after three visits, the next household was included.

Reviewer comments: The data quality assurance should be clearer at the three stage of the process and how it was ensured?

Authors response: Thank you for the comments and suggestions, this has been addressed in detail, kindly see page 9, line 143-152.

Reviewer comments: When did they collect the data? Is that immediately at giving birth, or after one month of their giving birth…etc?

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. Regardless of the outcome, limiting the participants to only a 1-year period and after one month of giving birth was made to minimize potential recall bias and make the mother stabilized and comfortable. Kindly see page 8, line 127-130.

Reviewer comments: Confidence interval should follow your percentage?

Authors response: thank you for your comments, this has been dressed kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: Revisit for the contents of the sections in general

Reviewer comments: Thank you for your suggestions. We were revisited the contents of the section. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: Revisits the statistics again for frequency, univariate, binary and multiple logistic regression e.g. Why P value < 0.05? P value < 0.025?

Authors response: variables at less than or equals to 0.25 p-values in the bivariable logistic regression model were fitted into the multivariable logistic regression model to control the effect of confounding variables. Variable having P-value less than or equals to 0.05 in the multivariable logistic regression analysis was considered as associated factors for factors for home delivery. The reason for using P value < 0.05? P value < 0.25? Based on reviewing literatures and there are a lot of research that are used such kinds of cut of point [2, 11, 13]. Kindly consider these kinds of issues.

Reviewer comments: Finally, you can cross tabulate women who fear infection of COVID 19 and home delivery. Why? You can even reframe the title by this

Authors response: Thank you for your comments and suggestions, this has been addressed according. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

1. Muluneh AG, Animut Y, Ayele TA: Spatial clustering and determinants of home birth after at least one antenatal care visit in Ethiopia: Ethiopian demographic and health survey 2016 perspective. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2020, 20(1):1-13.

2. Kasaye HK, Endale ZM, Gudayu TW, Desta MS: Home delivery among antenatal care booked women in their last pregnancy and associated factors: community-based cross sectional study in Debremarkos town, North West Ethiopia, January 2016. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2017, 17(1):1-12.

3. Berhan Y, Berhan A: Antenatal care as a means of increasing birth in the health facility and reducing maternal mortality: a systematic review. Ethiopian journal of health sciences 2014, 24:93-104.

4. Wodaynew T, Fekecha B, Abdisa B: Magnitude of home delivery and associated factors among antenatal care booked mothers in Delanta District, South Wollo Zone, North East Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study, March 2018. Int J Womens Health Wellness 2018, 4(2):1-11.

5. Tessema ZT, Tiruneh SA: Spatio-temporal distribution and associated factors of home delivery in Ethiopia. Further multilevel and spatial analysis of Ethiopian demographic and health surveys 2005–2016. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2020, 20(1):1-16.

6. Kifle MM, Kesete HF, Gaim HT, Angosom GS, Araya MB: Health facility or home delivery? Factors influencing the choice of delivery place among mothers living in rural communities of Eritrea. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 2018, 37(1):1-15.

7. Delibo D, Damena M, Gobena T, Balcha B: Status of home delivery and its associated factors among women who gave birth within the last 12 months in east Badawacho District, Hadiya zone, Southern Ethiopia. BioMed Research International 2020, 2020.

8. Chernet AG, Dumga KT, Cherie KT: Home delivery practices and associated factors in Ethiopia. Journal of reproduction & infertility 2019, 20(2):102.

9. Amano A, Gebeyehu A, Birhanu Z: Institutional delivery service utilization in Munisa Woreda, South East Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2012, 12(1):1-6.

10. Ayele G, Tilahune M, Merdikyos B, Animaw W, Taye W: Prevalence and associated factors of home delivery in Arbaminch Zuria district, southern Ethiopia: community based cross sectional study. Science 2015, 3(1):6-9.

11. Tsegaye AT, Mengistu M, Shimeka A: Prevalence of unintended pregnancy and associated factors among married women in west Belessa Woreda, Northwest Ethiopia, 2016. Reproductive health 2018, 15(1):1-8.

12. Markos D, Bogale D: Birth preparedness and complication readiness among women of child bearing age group in Goba woreda, Oromia region, Ethiopia. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2014, 14(1):1-9.

13. Yisak H, Gobena T, Mesfin F: Prevalence and risk factors for under nutrition among children under five at Haramaya district, Eastern Ethiopia. BMC pediatrics 2015, 15(1):1-7.

Attachment

Submitted filename: point by point response.docx

Decision Letter 3

Pracheth Raghuveer

1 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-10889R3Impact of fear of COVID-19 infection on home delivery among antenatal care booked women in Northeast EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Asmamaw,

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 08 February, 2023. 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,

Pracheth Raghuveer, MD, DNB

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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Review Report

Title of the study: Impact of fear of COVID-19 infection on home delivery among antenatal care booked women in Northeast Ethiopia.

Objective: To assess the impact of fear of COVID-19 infection on home delivery among antenatal booked women in Northeast Ethiopia.

Revised as per comment: More than 90% have been addressed. However, still some of them needs brief inclusion into the revised paper. E.g., sentence that described “...women was had given birth” in line 39 and 40 needs meticulous edition.

Review Comments

1. We have report that states institutional service delivery was hampered as a result of fear of health institution related COVID-19 infection. Hence, what does “Impact of fear of COVID-19 infection on home delivery among antenatal care booked women” mean? Therefore, you are expected to reason out more the component of the titles and the title still needs meticulous revision ? If it is a must to continue with this type of title / I didn’t recommend/ it can be reframed as “unmarried women have high home delivery during the era of COVID-19 in Northeast Ethiopia”. The study area was wide. Hence, should be in some district or zone.

2. By the way the title and the dependent variable are inconsistent.

3. The key words are not complete.

4. In the background of the abstract, you have stated as “despite the importance of giving birth at health facilities, in Ethiopia, nearly half of the mothers who were booked for antenatal care gave birth at home”. Therefore, what was the evidence? Is that before or after the introduction of COVID-19? Hence, if they already half of them give birth at home before the pandemic? What is new then after the pandemics?

5. Why they are not included in women’s development army since it is comprehensive package of care for women?

6. Your objective, methods, results, discussions and the conclusions are not well consistent.

7. What is the philosophical stance of the reasearcher?

8. Many grammatical and language errors E.g., Stata to mean “STATA”.

9. Still the data quality measures need detail emphasis?

10. What are the measures taken to reduce recall bias?

11. Did the case to variable ratio fit? How did you control confounders and multi-collinearity? Why you presented mean?

12. Avoid repetitions. E.g., ‘declarations”.

13. The contents, statistics and language needs English language expert before the next submission.

Decision: Major Revision with extensive edition.

**********

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: Yes: Saida Abrar

Reviewer #3: 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 Dec 5;18(12):e0295220. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295220.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


4 Feb 2023

Authors’ response to the reviewer’s comments

Title: Unmarried women have high home delivery during the era of COVID-19 in Gidan district Northeast Ethiopia

Authors

Desale Bihonegn Asmamaw (desalebihonegn1988@gmail.com)

Yohannes Ayanaw Habitu ((yohaneshabitu@gmail.com)

Eskedar Getie Mekonnen (eskedargetie18@gmail.com)

Wubshet Debebe Negash (wubshetdn@gmail.com)

Date: 04/022023

Authors’ Point-by-point response

Dear reviewer, we would like to extend our deepest appreciation for devoting your time to reviewing our manuscript entitled “Unmarried women have high home delivery during the era of COVID-19 in Gidan district Northeast Ethiopia". There has been a revision of this manuscript (Abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions). The whole structure of the manuscript has been revised. We hope now the manuscript is clear and more acceptable than its previous version. We have tried to present the paper in the proper manner according to your comment on what to suppose to do so. For this, here we have given our responses to each of the concerns you raised. Again, we would like to remind our strongest gratitude for your effort in the improvement of this manuscript, and all the points were addressed in the point-by-point response.

Reviewer comments

Reviewer comments: Revised as per comment: More than 90% have been addressed. However, still some of them needs brief inclusion into the revised paper. E.g., sentence that described “...women was had given birth” in line 39 and 40 needs meticulous edition.

Authors response: Thank you for your comments, this has been corrected accordingly. Kindly see line40-42.

Reviewer comments: We have report that states institutional service delivery was hampered as a result of fear of health institution related COVID-19 infection. Hence, what does “Impact of fear of COVID-19 infection on home delivery among antenatal care booked women” mean? Therefore, you are expected to reason out more the component of the titles and the title still needs meticulous revision ? If it is a must to continue with this type of title / I didn’t recommend/ it can be reframed as “unmarried women have high home delivery during the era of COVID-19 in Northeast Ethiopia”. The study area was wide. Hence, should be in some district or zone.

Authors response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. The title was reframed as you suggested. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: By the way the title and the dependent variable are inconsistent

Authors’ response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your observations. We corrected the errors. And the title and the dependent variable are consistent now. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: The keywords are not complete.

Authors response: Thank you for your suggestion and observations. This has been addressed. Kindly see the updated version of the keywords.

Reviewer comments: In the background of the abstract, you have stated as “despite the importance of giving birth at health facilities, in Ethiopia, nearly half of the mothers who were booked for antenatal care gave birth at home”. Therefore, what was the evidence? Is that before or after the introduction of COVID-19? Hence, if they already half of them give birth at home before the pandemic? What is new then after the pandemics?

Authors’ response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. In Ethiopia, nearly half of the mothers who were booked for antenatal care gave birth at home. This was reported by Ethiopia Demographic health survey (EDHS) of 2016. After the pandemic of COVID-19, the utilization of maternal health care like institutional delivery was more compromised [1]. This has been addressed in the updated version of the manuscript. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: why they are not included in women’s development army since it is comprehensive package of care for women?

Authors’ response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your point of view. Yes, women’s development army is a comprehensive package of care for women. However, all women are not actively participated in the women’s development army. Only some of the women are actively involved in the package [2, 3]. Kindly consider these issues.

Reviewer comments: Your objective, methods, results, discussions and the conclusions are not well consistent.

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. This has been corrected accordingly. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: What is the philosophical stance of the researchers?

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. Maternal morbidity and mortality are a global health challenge, and developing countries contribute to most maternal deaths. This can be reduced by improving maternal health care services utilizations like institutional service delivery. Previous scholars have stated that home delivery can be reduced by strengthening antenatal care (ANC) service utilization. But there are some studies reporting that ANC-booked women are still giving birth at home. And currently, places of delivery are also affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and associated factors of home delivery among women who had antenatal care booked in their last pregnancy during the era of COVID-19.

Reviewer comments: Many grammatical and language errors E.g., Stata to mean “STATA”.

Authors response: Thank you for your observations. This has been corrected accordingly. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comment: Still the data quality measures need detail emphasis?

Authors response: Thank you for your suggestions and comments. This has been addressed. Kindly see line 146-152.

Reviewer comments: What are the measures taken to reduce recall bias?

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. To reduce recall bias, some possible strategies were used, such as providing training for data collectors, employing pretests, and using standardized tools.

Reviewer comment: Did the case to variable ratio fit? How did you control confounders and multi-collinearity? Why you presented mean?

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. Prior to identifying the significant factors, multicollinearity was tested using the variance inflation factor (VIF), and we got a VIF of less than five for each independent variable with a mean VIF of 1.56, indicating there was no significant multicollinearity between independent variables. We used mean because, before selecting a summary measure, we checked for normality tests such as kurtosis and skewness were employed to see the normal distribution of the variables and to identify which summary measures were appropriate to use. We got a symmetric distribution, therefore we used mean. Kindly consider these issues.

Reviewer comment: Avoid repetitions. E.g., ‘declarations”.

Authors response: Thank you for your observations. The repetitions were avoided.

Reviewer comments: The contents, statistics and language needs English language expert before the next submission.

Authors response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. An academic English language experts exhaustively proofread and edited the document. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

References

1. Abdisa DK, Jaleta DD, Feyisa JW, Kitila KM, Berhanu RD: Access to maternal health services during COVID-19 pandemic, re-examining the three delays among pregnant women in Ilubabor zone, southwest Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. Plos one 2022, 17(5):e0268196.

2. Wondimu MS, Woldesemayat EM: Determinants of home delivery among women in rural pastoralist community of hamar district, southern Ethiopia: a case–control study. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020:2159-2167.

3. Zegeye EA, Reshad A, Bekele EA, Aurgessa B, Gella Z: The state of health technology assessment in the Ethiopian health sector: learning from recent policy initiatives. Value in Health Regional Issues 2018, 16:61-65.

Thank you

Attachment

Submitted filename: point by point response.docx

Decision Letter 4

Pracheth Raghuveer

18 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-10889R4Unmarried women have high home delivery during the era of COVID-19 in Gidan district Northeast EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Asmamaw,

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 Jun 02 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,

Pracheth Raghuveer, MD, DNB

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 #3: 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 #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: Review Report

Title: Unmarried women have high home delivery during the era of COVID-19 in Gidan district Northeast Ethiopia.

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-10889R4.

Review Version: IV

Review Comments

General Comments

� Which have high percentage E.g., unmarried women home delivery, rural residents home delivery, husband education with home delivery and not involving in women development army and home delivery or fear of COVID 19 and home delivery i.e. Why you prefer unmarried women over others? Taking the culture of the community and the occurrence of conflict in the area how do you say that most of them were unmarried since it is uncommon for the women to be pregnant to these much number? If that is so is that wanted pregnancy?

� I prefer the title to be “ANC Booked Unmarried women have high Home delivery during the era of COVID 19 Pandemic in Gidan District, Ethiopia”

B. Specific Comments

1. Background: It well refined but still needs strengthening and shortening to the main objective of the study.

2. Methods

• The study period was not well written i.e., “March 30 and April 29, 2021”

• Have you conducted training of the data collectors to maintain quality assurance?

• Are there supervisors for the data collectors? How one PI supervisors over 760 sample?

• Who translated the two forms of the questionnaire?

• In the analysis have you calculated the case to variable ratio? If so, what was the result?

3. On the Result section

� Brief, simple, logical and coherent way of writing the result.

� Would you cross tab those associated factors with the home delivery.

� The tables are not self-explanatory E.g. Didn’t describe the district.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

The discussion needs more refinement

There should be theoretical, practical, logical and frame work related explanations for those findings.

The conclusion should be drawn from the objective and implies the main issue of the study.

Where is whether there is funding or not.

5. Use of words: E.g., ‘North east Ethiopia’ should be Northeastern Ethiopia.

: Capital Letters E.g., kilometers should be Kilometers.

: Slided message: E.g., “who were booked for ANC”

: Some of the figures lack percentage after them E.g., “from 16 to 33%.”

: Inconsistencies E.g., Use of institutional delivery and health facility delivery and giving birth at health facilities and health institution delivery.

: Sentence flow gaps E.g., COVID-19 have disastrous effect.

6. Statistics

� Still careful review on the fitness of the model, analysis and interpretations is needed.

� Add cross tabulations

7. Language and Grammar

o Needs careful review

**********

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 #3: 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 Dec 5;18(12):e0295220. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295220.r010

Author response to Decision Letter 4


25 Apr 2023

Authors’ Point-by-point response

Dear reviewer, we would like to extend our deepest appreciation for devoting your time to reviewing our manuscript entitled "Antenatal care booked rural residence women have high home delivery during the era of COVID-19 pandemic in Gidan District, Ethiopia". The whole structure of the manuscript has been revised. We hope the manuscript is now clearer and more acceptable than its previous version. We have tried to present the paper in the proper manner according to your comment on how to do so. For this reason, we have given our responses to each of the concerns you raised.

Reviewer comments

Reviewer comments: Which have high percentage E.g., unmarried women home delivery, rural residents home delivery, husband education with home delivery and not involving in women development army and home delivery or fear of COVID 19 and home delivery i.e. Why you prefer unmarried women over others? Taking the culture of the community and the occurrence of conflict in the area how do you say that most of them were unmarried since it is uncommon for the women to be pregnant to these much number? If that is so is that wanted pregnancy?

Authors’ response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your concerns and suggestions. We appreciate your point of view; yes, you are right, and we modified the topic accordingly. We prefer rural residence women based on consideration of the odds ratio, the culture of the community, the occurrence of conflict in the area, and the accessibility of the services. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: I prefer the title to be “ANC Booked Unmarried women have high Home delivery during the era of COVID 19 Pandemic in Gidan District, Ethiopia

Authors response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions. The title was reframed as accordingly. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: Background: It is well refined but still needs strengthening and shortening to the main objective of the study

Authors’ response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your observations and comments. This has been addressed in detail. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: The study period was not well written i.e., “March 30 and April 29, 2021”

Authors response: Thank you for your suggestion and observations. This has been corrected, kindly see the update version of it.

Reviewer comments: Have you conducted training of the data collectors to maintain quality assurance?

Authors’ response: Yes, the data collectors and supervisors were trained for two days, focusing on how to ask and fill out the questionnaires, the selection criteria for women, and how to approach the respondents. Kindly see page 9, line 144-147.

Reviewer comments: Are there supervisors for the data collectors? How one PI supervisors over 760 sample?

Authors response: There are eight BSc midwifery or nursing data collectors and two supervisors in the same field with experience in research and fieldwork coordination who participated in the data collection process. The whole data collection process was closely supervised by the principal investigator (PI). Kindly see page 9, line 160-163.

Reviewer comments: Who translated the two forms of the questionnaire?

Authors response: Thank you for your concerns. The two forms of the questionnaires were translated by language experts who have previous experience with this.

Reviewer comments: In the analysis have you calculated the case to the variable ratio? If so, what was the result?

Authors’ response: Yes, we calculated the case-to-variable ratio, the case-to-variable ratio showed 12.8 to 1, which indicates a ratio above the required 5 to 1. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: The tables are not self-explanatory E.g. Didn’t describe the district.

Authors response: Thank you for your comments, this has been addressed, kindly see the updated tables.

Reviewer comments: The discussion needs more refinement, There should be theoretical, practical, logical and frame work related explanations for those findings.

Authors response: Dear reviewer, thank you for suggestions and comments, this has been addressed; kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: Would you cross tab those associated factors with the home delivery.

Authors response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your concerns, this has been already done, kindly see table 3.

Reviewer comments: The conclusion should be drawn from the objective and implies the main issue of the study.

Authors response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments and suggestions, this has been addressed.

Reviewer comments: Where is whether there is funding or not.

Authors response: This is available in the declaration section, kindly see page 17, line 313-314.

Reviewer comments: Use of words: E.g., ‘North east Ethiopia’ should be Northeastern Ethiopia

Capital Letters E.g., kilometers should be Kilometers

Slided message: E.g., "who were booked for ANC"

Some of the figures lack percentage after them E.g., "from 16 to 33%."

Inconsistencies E.g., Use of institutional delivery and health facility delivery and giving birth at health facilities and health institution delivery.

Sentence flow gaps E.g., COVID-19 have disastrous effect.

Authors response: Thank you for your observations and suggestions, these have been corrected and addressed, kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: Still careful review on the fitness of the model, analysis and interpretations is needed.

Authors response: Thank you for your comments, we were done the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, the model was adequate with the p-value of 0.26. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: Language and Grammar

Authors response: Thank you for the suggestion, the entire article has been read and corrected by a native English speaker. Kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Thank you

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 5

Pracheth Raghuveer

24 Jul 2023

PONE-D-22-10889R5Antenatal care booked rural residence women have high home delivery during the era of COVID-19 pandemic in Gidan District, EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Asmamaw, 

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 Sep 07 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,

Pracheth Raghuveer, MD, DNB

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 #4: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #4: 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 #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #4: 1, ...Despite the importance

23 of giving birth at a health institution, in Ethiopia, according to the Ethiopian Demographic

24 Health Survey report, nearly half of the ANC-booked mothers gave birth at home

do not you think that the finding of EDHS data report of home birth is higher than the finding of this study? therefore, please omit the term high from the title of this research , for even it is below the national report, EDHS!

2, I don think that the sampling procedure is multi stage sampling because no more than one stage was gone to gate sampling unit for this study, u started from woreda then no more step to reach sampling unit simple u can select study unit SRS being at woreda level or kebeles due to the list already known and sharing the sample size proportionally for srata u randomly selected. there fore modify to simple random sampling.

3, repeated statements are there eg model adequacy

**********

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 #4: Yes: Jira Wakoya Feyisa

**********

[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 Dec 5;18(12):e0295220. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295220.r012

Author response to Decision Letter 5


28 Oct 2023

Authors’ response to the reviewer’s comments

Title: Antenatal care booked rural residence women have home delivery during the era of COVID-19 Pandemic in Gidan District, Ethiopia

Authors

Desale Bihonegn Asmamaw (desalebihonegn1988@gmail.com)

Yohannes Ayanaw Habitu ((yohaneshabitu@gmail.com)

Eskedar Getie Mekonnen (eskedargetie18@gmail.com)

Wubshet Debebe Negash (wubshetdn@gmail.com)

Date: 22/04/022023

Authors’ Point-by-point response

Dear reviewer, we would like to extend our deepest appreciation for devoting your time to reviewing our manuscript entitled "Antenatal care booked rural residence women have home delivery during the era of COVID-19 pandemic in Gidan District, Ethiopia". The whole structure of the manuscript has been revised. We hope the manuscript is now clearer and more acceptable than its previous version. We have tried to present the paper in the proper manner according to your comment on how to do so. For this reason, we have given our responses to each of the concerns you raised.

Reviewer comments

Reviewer comments: , ...Despite the importance of giving birth at a health institution, in Ethiopia, according to the Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey report, nearly half of the ANC-booked mothers gave birth at home do not you think that the finding of EDHS data report of home birth is higher than the finding of this study? therefore, please omit the term high from the title of this research , for even it is below the national report, EDHS!

Authors response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your concerns, we have been addressed this issue according to your comments, kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: I don think that the sampling procedure is multi stage sampling because no more than one stage was gone to gate sampling unit for this study, u started from woreda then no more step to reach sampling unit simple u can select study unit SRS being at woreda level or kebeles due to the list already known and sharing the sample size proportionally for srata u randomly selected. there fore modify to simple random sampling.

Authors response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation and suggestion, we have been modified according to your comment and suggestion, kindly see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments: repeated statements are there eg model adequacy

Authors’ response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your observations, the errors were corrected, kindly see the updated versions of the manuscript.

Thank you

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 6

Pracheth Raghuveer

20 Nov 2023

Antenatal care booked rural residence women have home delivery during the era of COVID-19 pandemic in Gidan District, Ethiopia

PONE-D-22-10889R6

Dear Dr. Desale

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,

Pracheth Raghuveer, MD, DNB

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Pracheth Raghuveer

27 Nov 2023

PONE-D-22-10889R6

Antenatal care booked rural residence women have home delivery during the era of COVID-19 pandemic in Gidan District, Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Asmamaw:

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 customercare@plos.org.

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Pracheth Raghuveer

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. Amharic version questionnaires.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. English version questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File. Data used for analysis including data on home delivery and associated factors.

    (XLS)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: point by point response.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: point by point response.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: point by point response.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: point by point response.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and Supporting Information file.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES