Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Jul 8;19(7):e0297700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297700

Determinants of feto-maternal outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage among women who gave birth in Awi zone public hospitals, Ethiopia. A case-control study

Ambaye Minayehu Zegeye 1,*, Yibelu Bazezew 2, Ashete Adare 3, Paulos Jaleta 4, Wale Kumlachew 4, Seid Wodajo Liben 1, Yaregal Dessalew Tarik 1, Getahun Degualeh Kebede 1, Yilkal Dagnaw 1, Fentahun Tamene Zeleke 5, Dawit Misganaw Belay 1
Editor: Gizachew Tadele Tiruneh6
PMCID: PMC11230564  PMID: 38976684

Abstract

Background

Antepartum hemorrhage continues to be a major cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in developing countries including Ethiopia and it complicates 2–5% of all pregnancies with an increased rate of maternal and perinatal morbidity and even mortality. Despite many activities, still, poor fetomaternal outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage are still there. Moreover, studies around the current study area emphasize the magnitude and associated factors for antepartum hemorrhage rather than its feto-maternal outcomes. Thus, there is a need to identify the determinants associated with the fetomaternal outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage to guide midwives and obstetricians in the early diagnosis and treatment.

Method

An institution-based case-control study was conducted in four-year delivery charts diagnosed with antepartum hemorrhage from April 2, 2022, to May 12, 2022, at Awi Zone public hospitals. To see the association between dependent and independent variables logistic regression model along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and a p-value of <0.05 were used.

Result

No antenatal care follow-up (AOR: 2.5, 95% CI 1.49–4.2), rural residence (AOR: 1.706, 95%CI 1.09–2.66), delay to seek care >12 hours (AOR: 2.57, 95% CI: 1.57–4.23) and advanced maternal age (AOR: 3.43, 95% CI 1.784–6.59) were significant factors associated with feto-maternal outcomes of antepartum Hemorrhage.

Conclusion

This study revealed that rural residence, delay in seeking the care of more than 12 hours, not having antenatal care follow up and advanced maternal age were significant factors associated with feto-maternal outcomes of Antepartum hemorrhage.

Recommendation

The findings of our study suggest the need for health education about the importance of antenatal care follow-up which is the ideal entry point for health promotion and early detection of complications, especially for rural residents.

Introduction

Antepartum hemorrhage is bleeding through the birth canal from the 28th week of gestation to the delivery of the baby. Mainly placenta previa and abruption-placenta cause antepartum hemorrhage (APH) [1], but in a small proportion, local lesions of the cervix and vagina, rupture of vasa previa, and uterine rupture might be the causes it [2, 3]. Antepartum hemorrhage complicates 2–5% of all pregnancies with increased rates of feto-maternal morbidity and mortality [2]. Placenta previa is responsible for one-third of APH with the incidence ranging from 0.5 to 1% [4]. A recent study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia showed that APH affects 3.7% of all deliveries [5].

APH has been associated with several maternal and fetal complications that include postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), hemorrhagic shock, anemia, sepsis, premature labor, prematurity, stillbirth, fetal hypoxia, low birth weight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission [1]. Moreover, APH continues to be one of the leading causes of maternal death, accounting for 50% of the reported 500,000 maternal deaths worldwide per year [68]. It also accounts for 30% of the direct causes of maternal death [911].

From 2000 to 2017, the global maternal mortality rate (MMR) declined by 38%, from 451,000 to 295,000. Despite the substantial decrease, MMR remains relatively high in low- and middle-income nations. Sub-Saharan African nations are responsible for almost 60% of the predicted global maternal mortality in 2017 [12].

The absolute number of maternal deaths in Ethiopia has decreased by 55%, from 31,000 in 1990 to 14,000 in 2017 [3, 12]. In the previous two decades, the country has made significant progress in reducing maternal mortality. The MMR has decreased from roughly 871 deaths in 2000 to 401 deaths in 2017; nonetheless, there is a significant difference within regional states [1315]. Because of these geographical variances, the country has failed to meet one of the MDG’s aims of lowering MMR to 267 by 2015 [3].

Direct obstetric causes such as bleeding, infection, unsafe abortion, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and obstructed labor account for almost three-quarters of maternal deaths in low-income countries [16]. Studies showed that advanced maternal age, parity, previous history of APH, rural residence, no antenatal care (ANC), delay seeking care, and previous cesarean delivery are risk factors for the occurrence of APH [7, 17, 18].

Ethiopia launched the maternal death surveillance and response system (MDSR) in 2013 to provide real-time data on the patterns and trends of preventable maternal death and achieve the sustainable development goal target 3.1 (a lower maternal mortality ratio of less than 70 per 100 000 live births by 2030) [1921]. MDSR is a continual process of recognizing maternal mortality, acquiring information on the causes and determinants of those deaths, and analyzing the data to prevent similar deaths in the future [22].

In tandem with the establishment of the MDSR, Ethiopia has initiated several measures to reduce unnecessary maternal deaths, such as the construction of maternity waiting rooms within health facilities [23, 24], as well as the availability of free transportation and maternity services [25]. Despite all of these efforts and measures, MMR in Ethiopia remains unacceptably high [26].

Even if several studies were investigated in the study area, all emphasized the magnitude and its associated factors for APH. However, none of the studies incorporates the feto-maternal outcomes of APH. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the determinants of feto-maternal outcomes of APH among women who were complicated by antepartum hemorrhage in Awi Zone public hospitals.

Material and methods

Study area and period

This study was conducted at Awi Zone public hospitals, namely, Injibara General Hospital, Chagni Primary Hospital, Dangila Primary Hospital, Agew Gimjabet Primary Hospital, and Jawe Primary Hospital, from April 2–May 12, 2022. Awi Zone is one of the administrative zones in the Amhara regional state, with the capital city of Injibara. It is located in the northwestern part of Ethiopia, 447 kilometers away from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. According to the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia, in 2007, more than one million people populated the Awi Zone.

Study design

An institution-based case-control study was conducted at Awi Zone public hospitals.

Source and study population

The source population of this study was medical records of mothers who gave birth in Awi Zone public hospitals, while the study population was mothers’ medical records diagnosed with APH from March 2018 through 2022 in Awi Zone public hospitals.

Sample size determination

Epi-Info version 7.2.1 was used to determine the sample size, considering the following assumptions: 95% confidence interval, power of 80%, an adjusted odds ratio of 3.7, the ratio of cases to control is 1:1, and taking 2.8% of the proportion of APH associated with stillbirth (one of the feto-maternal outcomes of APH) from a case-control study conducted in Nepal [27]. The final calculated sample size was 448 medical record charts (224 cases and 224 controls).

Sampling technique and procedure

A complete ascertainment of cases and a simple random sampling technique were employed for the selection of controls. The four-year (March 1, 2018–March 30, 2022) medical record numbers of all mothers who had APH were traced from the hospitals’ delivery logbook registry. After reviewing their completeness, all medical record numbers were grouped into cases and controls. All the cases were ascertained completely, and controls were entered into Microsoft Excel to apply a computer-generated simple random sampling technique.

Six hundred fifty-one APH cases were reported in the health management information systems of the five hospitals. Then proportional allocation was employed to get the required sample size in each hospital, as shown in the following figure (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Schematic presentation of the sampling procedure for the selection of study subjects at Awi zone hospitals, North West, Ethiopia, 2021.

Fig 1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

All women’s medical charts with a diagnosis of APH were included, while medical charts with missed information, multiple pregnancies, and confirmed intrauterine fetal death before the onset of APH were excluded.

Study variables

Dependent variables

Feto-maternal outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage (good or poor).

Independent variable

Socio-demographic factors.

  • ■ Age

  • ■ Residence

  • ■ Education

  • ■ Occupation

  • ■ Marital status

Health system-related factors

  • ■ Referral system

  • ■ Distance traveled

  • ■ Blood transfusion service

  • ■ Neonatal intensive care unit service

  • ■ Prolonged hospital stay

  • ■ ANC follow-up

Clinical factors

  • ■ History of hypertension disorder during pregnancy

  • ■ Previous history of cesarean delivery

  • ■ Mode of delivery

  • ■ History of curettage

  • ■ History of APH

  • ■ Types of current APH, anemia, and hysterectomy

  • ■ History of abdominal trauma

  • ■ Parity and gravidity

  • ■ Gestational age

  • ■ PPH, coagulopathy

  • ■ Number of pregnancies

Operational definitions

Poor feto-maternal outcome: this is a medical condition in which either the mother or the newborn suffers from at least one of the complications due to APH. The maternal complications include death, hemorrhagic shock, PPH, anemia, the need for a blood transfusion, a long hospital stay, and peripartum hysterectomy. Whereas neonatal complications might be preterm birth, low birth weight (less than 2500 gm), meconium aspiration syndrome, low APGAR score (less than 7), admission to the NICU, and newborn death (stillbirth) [17].

Antepartum hemorrhage: APH is defined as bleeding from or into the genital tract after the 24th week of pregnancy but before the delivery of the baby (last baby in case of multiple pregnancies) [28].

Abruptio placenta: an obstetric complication characterized by the detachment of a normally implanted placenta before delivery of the fetus [29].

Placenta previa: an obstetric complication characterized by placental implantation into the lower segment of the uterine wall, covering part of or the entire cervix [29].

Prolonged hospital stay: admission of the mother for more than one day for spontaneous vaginal delivery and more than seven days for complicated delivery [17].

Cases: all women with the antepartum hemorrhage who developed poor feto-maternal outcomes.

Control: all women with the antepartum hemorrhage who had good feto-maternal outcomes.

Data collection tools

A structured, validated, and pretested questionnaire adapted from related works of literature [6, 17, 30, 31] was used to collect data. Selected socio-demographic factors, health system-related factors, clinical factors, and feto-maternal outcomes of APH-related information were extracted from the medical record.

Data quality management

To ensure the quality of the data, one-day training about the objective of the study and proper handling of the data was given to data collectors and supervisors. A pretest among 5% of the total sample size was conducted at Injibara General Hospital one week before the data collection period. These were the women’s medical records of antepartum hemorrhage before March 2017, which were not included in the actual data collection. The questionnaire was modified based on the pre-test, and variables like the grade of abruption of the placenta, level of income, and organ function test were excluded from the questionnaire. Supervision was conducted throughout data collection, and the data was crosschecked for completeness by the data collectors, supervisors, and principal investigator.

Data analysis and processing

The data was coded and entered into Epi Data version 4.6, then exported to SPSS version 25.0 for analysis. Descriptive statistics like frequencies and percentages were presented with texts, tables, and simple bar graphs. A bivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to see the association between each independent variable and the outcome variable. Multi-collinearity was checked by using the variance-inflation factor (VIF), which ranges from 1.05 to 1.28. Model fitness was checked using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit (P > 0.05). An adjusted odds ratio along with a 95% confidence interval assessed the degree of association between independent and dependent variables. Those variables with a p-value of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Ethical clearance

Ethical clearance was obtained from the ethical review committee of Debre Markos University College of Health Sciences. Written permission to conduct the study was obtained from subsequent hospital administrators after explaining the purpose and ethical process of the study. Moreover, there are no invasive procedures in this study, and it was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki.

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics of cases and controls

There were 25,152 deliveries in the four years at Awi Zone public hospitals. Among these, 651 had antepartum hemorrhage which accounts for 2.6% of the total deliveries. The overall mean age for our sample (448) was 30.89±5.836 years, and women with cases (poor feto-maternal outcomes) had a significantly higher mean age (32.28, SD = 5.77 years) than their unaffected counterparts (29.49, SD = 5.77 years). Among cases, 50.3% of the women were in the age range of 30–35, and 64.7% were rural residents. Out of the cases, regarding marital status, occupation, and education status, 95.6%, 62.5%, and 62.4% were married, housewives, and unable to read and write, respectively (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the cases and controls in Awi Zone public hospitals, 2022 (N = 448).

Variables Category Cases (n = 224) Controls (n = 224)
Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Age 18–24 33(31.7%) 71(68.3%)
25–29 32(48.5%) 34(51.5%)
30–35 87(50.3%) 86(49.7%)
>35 72(64.7%) 33(31,4%)
Residence Urban 79(35.3%) 131(58.5%)
Rural 145(64.7%) 93(41.5%)
Educational level Can’t read &write 166(62.4%) 100(37.6%)
Attended grades 1–8 22(28.6%) 55(71.4%)
Attended grades 9–12 17(29.8%) 40(70.2%)
Diploma & above 19(39.6%) 29(60.4%)
Occupation Housewife 140(62.5%) 113(50.4%)
Governmental employee 14(6.3%) 30(13.4%)
Student 8(3.6%) 13(5.8%)
Merchant 27(12.1%) 46(20.5%)
Private employee 30(13.4%) 11(4.9%)
Daily laborer 5(2.2%) 11(4.9%)
Marital status Married 214(95.6%) 210(93.7%)
Single 5(2.2%) 8(3.6%)
Divorced 5(2.2%) 6(2.7%)

Clinically related characteristics of the cases and controls

Concerning parity, 117 (52.2%) and 16 (7.2%) of cases were grand multipara and primipara respectively, whereas 59 (26.3%) and 50 (22.3%) of controls were grand multipara and primipara respectively. The most common causes of APH were placenta previa (PP) (52.2%), abruption placenta (AP) (42.2%), and uterine rupture (5.4%). About seven (3.1%), nine (4%), five (2.2%), and six (3.1%) of cases had a history of previous APH, history of dilatation and curettage (D&C), history of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (HDP), and history of previous cesarean delivery (C/D) respectively. With no significant difference 5 (2.2%), 8 (3.6%), 10 (4.5%), and 8 (3.6%) controls had a history of previous APH, history of dilatation and curettage, history of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, and history of previous cesarean delivery respectively. One hundred thirteen (50.4%) newborns delivered in mothers with cases were preterm (Table 2).

Table 2. Clinical-related characteristics of cases and controls in Awi Zone public hospitals, 2022 (N = 448).

Variable Category Cases n = 224 Controls n = 224
Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Parity 1 16 (7.2%) 50(22.3%)
2–4 91(40.6%) 115(51.4%)
5 and above 117(52.2%) 59(26.3%)
Gestational age <37 week 113(50.4%) 0(0%)
≥ 37 week 111(49.6%) 224(100%)
Cause of a current APH PP 110(49.1%) 124(55.4%)
AP 90(40.2%) 100(44.6%)
Uterine rupture 24(10.7%) 0(0%)
History of previous APH Yes 7(3.1%) 5(2.2%)
No 217(96.9%) 219(97.8%)
History of D&C Yes 9(4%) 8(3.6%)
No 215(96%) 216(96.4%)
History of HDP Yes 5(2.2%) 10(4.5%)
No 219(97.8%) 214(95.5%)
History of a previous C/D Yes 6(2.7%) 8(3.6%)
No 218(97.3%) 216 (96.4%)

Health system-related characteristics of the cases and controls

About 124 (55.4%) cases and 190 (84.8%) controls had their regular ANC follow-up. From these, 56 (45.2%) cases and 132 (69.5%) controls had at least four ANC visits. For 169 (75.4%) cases and 122 (54.4%) controls, their mode of delivery was a caesarian section. Thirty-three (14.7%) cases and 46 (20.5%) controls with gestational age less than 37 weeks had been administered dexamethasone for lung maturity (Table 3).

Table 3. Health system-related factors of the cases and controls in Awi Zone public hospitals, 2022.

(N = 448).

Variables Category Cases n = 224 Controls n = 224 Total N = 448
Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
ANC No 100(44.6%) 34(15.2%) 134(29.9%)
Yes 124(55.4%) 190(84.8%) 314(70.1%)
Number of ANC visits I 14(11.2%) 5(2.6%) 19(6.1%)
II 27(21.8%) 17(8.9%) 44(14%)
III 27(21.8%) 36(18.9%) 63(20%)
IV& above 56(45.2%) 132(69.6%) 188(59.9%)
Was remember LNMP No 120(53.6%) 53(23.7%) 173(38.6%)
Yes 104(46.4%) 171(76.3%) 275(61.4%)
Mode of delivery C/D 169(75.4%) 122(54.4%) 291(65%)
SVD 48(21.4%) 96(42.9%) 144(32.1%)
Instrumental 7(3.1%) 6(2.7%) 13(2.9%)
Referral from another health facility No 66(29.5%) 110(49.1%) 176(39.3%)
Yes 158(70.5%) 114(50.9%) 272(60.7%)
Iron folate supplementation Yes 119(53.1%) 190(84.8%) 309(68.97%)
No 105(46.9%) 34(14.2%) 139(31.03%)
Dexamethasone given Yes 33(14.7%) 46(20.5%) 79(17.6%)
No 191(85.3%) 178(79.5%) 369(82.4%)

Maternal outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage

Of the total 224 cases, 31 (13.8%), 73 (32.4%), and 48 (21.4%) of them had developed PPH, hemorrhagic shock, and postpartum severe anemia, respectively. In these cases, 17 (7.6%) hysterectomy surgeries were performed, and 2 (0.9%) maternal deaths were reported. Fifty-four (24.1%) cases had been transfused with blood and 35 (15.6%) women had been admitted more than 7 days due to complications related to APH (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Maternal complications of antepartum hemorrhage among 224 cases at Awi Zone public hospitals, 2022.

Fig 2

Fetal outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage

Two hundred thirty-one (51.6%) newborns were males. About 78 (17.4%) were stillborn. The first and fifth-minute APGAR scores were less than seven for 143 (63.8%) and 86 (38.1%) newborns, respectively. Regarding birth weight, 97 (43.3%) newborns were less than 2500 grams. Out of the live newborn cases, 80 (35.7%) were transferred to the NICU (Table 4).

Table 4. Fetal outcomes of APH among women who gave birth in Awi Zone public hospitals, Ethiopia 2022, (n = 448).

Fetal outcome Category Cases n = 224 Frequency (%) Controls n = 224 Frequency (%) Total N = 448 Frequency (%)
Birth outcome Alive 146 (65.2%) 224 (100% 370 (82.6%)
Stillbirth 78 (34.8%) 0 (0%) 78 (17.4%)
Sex Female 109 (49.7%) 108 (48.2%) 217 (48.4%)
Male 115(51.3%) 116 (51.8%) 231 (51.6%)
Birth weight 1000–1499 4 (1.8%) 0 (0%) 4(0.9%)
1500–2499 93(41.5%) 0 (0%) 93(20.8%)
≥2500 127 (56.7%) 224 (100%) 351 (78.3%)
APGAR score at 1stmin <7 143(63.8%) 0 (0%) 143 (31.9%)
>7 81(36.2%) 224(100%) 305 (68.1%)
APGAR score at 5thmin <7 138 (61.9%0 0 (0%) 138 (30.9%)
>7 86 (38.1%) 224(100%) 309 (69.1%)
NICU admission Yes 80 (35.7%) 0 (0%) 80 (17.9%)
No 144 (64.3%) 224 (100%) 368 (82.1%)

Fetal complications of antepartum hemorrhage

Regarding fetal complications, among cases 32% developed birth asphyxia, 25% were delivered prematurely, 22% were delivered with low birth weight, and 17% were stillborn (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Fetal complications of APH among women who gave birth in Awi Zone public hospitals, Ethiopia 2022.

Fig 3

Determinants of feto-maternal outcomes of APH

In the bivariable analysis, maternal age (being between 30–34 years and greater than 35 years), residence, mode of delivery, previous history of hypertension, educational level of the mother, dexamethasone administration, referral from another health facility, gravidity, delay in seeking care for more than 12 hours, and not having ANC follow-up was significantly associated with poor feto-maternal outcomes of APH. However, in the multivariable analysis, delaying seeking care for more than 12 hours, not having ANC follow-up, advanced maternal age (> 35 years), and rural residence remained significantly associated with poor feto-maternal outcomes of APH.

The odds of poor feto-maternal outcomes among mothers who delayed seeking care for more than 12 hours were 2.57 times higher as compared to their counterparts (AOR = 2.57, 95% CI: 1.57, 4.23). The odds of poor feto-maternal outcomes among mothers who had no ANC follow-up were about 2.5 times higher than those of women who had ANC follow-up (AOR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.49, 4.2). Women with advanced maternal age (>35) were 3.429 times more likely to develop poor feto-maternal outcomes compared to women with an age group less than 35 (AOR = 3.43, 95% CI: 1.79, 6.59). Women residing in rural areas were 1.7 times more likely to develop poor feto-maternal outcomes as compared to women residing in urban areas (AOR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.09, 2.66). However, after adjusting the confounders, mode of delivery, previous history of hypertension, educational level of the mother, dexamethasone administration, referrals from other health facilities, and gravidity were not significantly associated with poor feto-maternal outcomes of APH (Table 5).

Table 5. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis of determinants of feto-maternal outcomes of APH among women who gave birth in Awi Zone public hospitals, Ethiopia, 2022, (N = 448).

Variable Category Fetomaternal outcomes 95% CI P value
Poor Good COR AOR
Maternal age >35 72 33 4.69 (2.5,8.0) 3.43 (1.78, 6.59) 0.000*
30–35 87 86 2.08 (1.3,3.4) 1.76 (1.00, 3.09) 0.051
25–29 32 34 1.9 (0.28,3.4) 1.78 (0.88, 3.59) 0.108
<25 34 70 1
Residence Rural 146 92 2.7 (1.8,3.9) 1.7 (1.09, 2.66) 0.018*
Urban 78 132 1
Educational status Can’t read& write 166 100 2.5 (1.4,4.8) 0.94 (0.4, 2.18) 0.880
Grade 1–8 22 55 0.6 (0.35,1.3) 0.47 (0.12, 1.11) 0.085
Grade 9–12 17 40 0.65 (0.29,1.46) 0.82 (0.33, 2.02) 0.666
College & above 19 29 1
ANC follow up No 100 34 4.5 (2.87,7.07) 2.5 (1.49, 4.18) 0.001*
Yes 124 190 1
Gravidity ≥5 143 88 5.8 (2.39,12.6) 1.96 (0.66,5.78) 0.225
2–4 73 109 2.3 (0.97,5.25) 1.63 (0.61,4.35) 0.331
Primigravida 8 27 1
History of HDP Yes 5 10 0.5 (0.16,1.45) 0.3 (0.09, 1.12) 0.074
No 219 214 1
Dexamethasone given No 191 178 1.5 (0.91,2.44) 1.3 (0.71, 1.06) 0.406
Yes 33 46 1
Referral from another health facility Yes 158 110 2.5 (1.75,3.81) 1.08 (0.61, 1.89) 0.794
No 66 114 1
Delay seek care >12 hrs. Yes 113 40 4.7 (3.04, 7.20) 2.5 (1.55, 4.19) 0.000*
No 111 184 1
Mode of delivery Emergency C/D 153 100 2.1 (1.05,4.20) 1.89 (0.87,4.07) 0.110
Instrumental delivery 7 6 1.6 (0.45,5.69) 0.44 (0.12, 1.65) 0.533
SVD 48 96 0.7 (0.33,1.40) 0.6 (0.15, 2.69) 0.387
Elective C/D 16 22 1

COR: crude odds ratio, AOR: adjusted odds ratio, CI: confidence interval

*statistically significant at p-value <0.05, 1 reference value.

Discussion

This study investigated the association between determinants and feto-maternal outcomes of APH and revealed that rural residence, delay seeking care >12 hours, not having ANC follow-up, and advanced maternal age were significant determinants of poor feto-maternal outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage. The absence of ANC and the delay in seeking care during pregnancy put the mother and her fetus at increased risk of antepartum hemorrhage complications. This study revealed that women who delayed seeking care for more than 12 hours were more likely to develop poor feto-maternal outcomes as compared to early healthcare seekers. This is consistent with a study conducted at Mettu Karl referral hospital in Ethiopia [17]. This could be due to the absence of awareness of obstetric danger signs during pregnancy, lack of transportation, failure of the early referral system, and poor community awareness [32].

Women residing in rural areas were at increased risk of developing poor feto-maternal outcomes than those urban residents, which is similar to a study done at Jimma University’s specialized hospital in Ethiopia [30]. This might be due to the distance from their home to the health facility, the absence of media in a remote area, their low socioeconomic class, or even their attitude towards ANC follow-up during pregnancy.

Women without ANC follow-up were more likely to develop poor feto-maternal outcomes as compared to their counterparts. This finding is consistent with a study conducted in Hyderabad [31]. This is because ANC is the ideal platform for important healthcare functions, including health promotion, disease prevention, screening, and early intervention. By providing appropriate evidence-based ANC, it is possible to save lives and any complications for mothers and newborns related to APH [33]. Moreover, financial constraints, the unavailability of road construction, the cost of transportation, and low community awareness about the importance of ANC affected ANC follow-up. In turn, these contribute to a delay in seeking care for early prevention of complications [34, 35].

In this study, advanced maternal age >35 years was significantly associated with poor feto-maternal outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage. This could be due to atherosclerotic alterations in the uterine blood vessels, which reduce uteroplacental blood flow and produce infarction, resulting in little placental perfusion [3638].

There were 25,152 deliveries during the study period in all Awi Zone public hospitals. Among these, 448 had antepartum hemorrhage complicating 2.6% of them, which is in line with studies done in different countries [5, 17, 39, 40]. However, our study’s finding is lower than a study done at Jimma University’s specialized hospital [30]. This might be due to the difference in the level of caregiving practice in hospitals. Jimma University’s specialized hospital is a tertiary hospital serving critical patients referred from different health facilities.

Placenta previa 234 (52.2%), followed by abruption placenta 190 (42.2%), were the most common causes of APH. Supporting this finding, other studies in different countries also revealed that placenta previa was the primary cause of APH [5, 4145]. In contrast to this finding, the major cause of APH was abruption of the placenta, followed by placenta previa, according to a study done at JUSH and India [30, 31].

For 169 (75.4%) cases and 122 (54.4%) controls, their mode of delivery was a caesarian section. This is comparable with the study findings at Jimma University Hospital, three teaching hospitals in Addis Ababa, and a study conducted in India [5, 30, 45]. This increased rate of cesarean sections was due to maternal health concerns, which include hemorrhagic shock, placenta previa, and fetal distress.

The current study found 2 (0.9%) maternal deaths, which is lower than the study conducted in India and Jimma University Hospital in Ethiopia [30, 31]. This could be due to the difference in level and setup of the two hospitals. Moreover, the lifesaving care of blood transfusion was conducted for 24.1% of patients in the current study, which is higher than the number of patients transfused with blood at Jimma University Hospital.

Fifty-four (24.1%) cases were transfused with blood. This is higher than a study conducted at Jimma University Hospital in which only 18.5% of patients were transfused with at least one unit of blood. For mothers suffering from obstetric hemorrhage, blood transfusion is a life-saving element of comprehensive emergency obstetric care [30].

The current study revealed that about 78 (17.4%), 143 (63.8%), and 97 (43.3%) newborns from mothers with poor feto-maternal outcomes were stillborn, had low APGAR scores, and had low birth weights, respectively. Comparably to these findings, a study conducted at a northern Nigerian teaching hospital reported that 57.2%, 25.6%, and 42.8% of newborns had low birth weight, low Apgar score, and stillbirths, respectively [31].

Birth asphyxia (32%), and prematurity (25%), were the major neonatal complications in the current study. This is congruent with a study finding at Jimma University Hospital, three teaching hospitals in Addis Ababa, and a study done in India [5, 30, 45].

Limitations

The limitation of this study is its retrospective design, which makes it difficult to access cards with full patient information. Therefore, future researchers will be better able to conduct follow-up studies. This study was also conducted at public hospitals, which makes its result difficult to apply to the whole population of pregnant women with antepartum hemorrhage.

Conclusion and recommendations

This study revealed that rural residence, delay seeking care >12 hours, not having ANC follow-up, and advanced maternal age were significant determinants of poor feto-maternal outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage. The absence of ANC and the delay in seeking care during pregnancy put the mother and her fetus at increased risk of antepartum hemorrhage complications.

Recommendations

Based on our study findings, we recommend the expansion of health education about the importance of ANC follow-up for health promotion and early detection of complications, especially for rural residents. It is also better to give attention and commitment to advocating timely marriage and pregnancy to prevent obstetric complications related to advanced age.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(SAV)

pone.0297700.s001.sav (31.3KB, sav)
S2 Dataset

(SPS)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Assosa University for the duplication of the questionnaire.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

We received a small grant from Assosa University and Debre Markos University for data collection, these institutions have no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Senkoro EE, Mwanamsangu AH, Chuwa FS, Msuya SE, Mnali OP, Brown BG, et al. Frequency, risk factors, and adverse fetomaternal outcomes of placenta previa in Northern Tanzania. Journal of pregnancy. 2017;2017. doi: 10.1155/2017/5936309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.McLintock C, James A. Obstetric hemorrhage. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2011;9(8):1441–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2011.04398.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.health EMo. National reproductive health strategies from 2016–2020. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Konar H. DC Dutta’s textbook of obstetrics: JP Medical Ltd; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fantahun Y, Mesfin E. Perinatal and Maternal Outcome of Antepartum Hemorrhage in Addis Ababa University. Ethiopian Journal of Reproductive Health. 2020;12(3):8-. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shinde G, Laddad M, Patil D, Pentela G. ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS FOR ANTEPARTUM HEMORRHAGE-A CLINICAL STUDY. Journal of Critical Reviews. 2020;7(6):1037–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kalam F, Faruq MO, Chowdhury SB. Maternal and perinatal mortality, morbidity and risk factor evaluation in antepartum hemorrhage associated with Placenta Praevia. Bangladesh Critical Care Journal. 2013;1(2):65–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gt Guideline. Antepartum Haemorrhage. November 2011. 63 [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sharmila G. Maternal and perinatal outcome in antepartum hemorrhage. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Patil Y, Patil S, Jaiswani R, Kalburgi P. A STUDY OF MATERNAL AND FETAL OUTCOME IN ANTEPARTUM HEMORRHAGE. Journal of Critical Reviews. 2020;7(6):922–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Naimish D. Nathwani RCV, Sapana R. Shah, Purvi M Parikh. Study on fetomaternal outcome in antepartum hemorrhage. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology Nathwani ND et al Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gyneco. 06 October 2020;9(11):4554–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Organization WH. Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2017: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group, and the United Nations Population Division. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Csa I. Central Statistical Agency (CSA)[Ethiopia] and ICF. Ethiopia demographic and health survey, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA. 2016;1. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gebremedhin S. Development of a new model for estimating maternal mortality ratio at national and sub-national levels and its application for describing sub-national variations of maternal death in Ethiopia. Plos one. 2018;13(8):e0201990. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201990 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Geleto A, Chojenta C, Taddele T, Loxton D. Association between maternal mortality and cesarean section in Ethiopia: a national cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy and childbirth. 2020;20:1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.WHO U. UNFPA, the World Bank, and the United Nations Population Division. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2013. World Health Organization. 2014;201456. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kassie D. Management outcome and associated factors among women with antepartum hemorrhage in Mettu Karl referral hospital, Oromia regional state, Illu Ababora zone, southwest Ethiopia 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hartell C. The incidence and outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage of unknown origin at Tygerberg Hospital: a retrospective, descriptive study: Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Estimates by WHO U, UNFPA, World Bank Group, Division at UNP. Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990. to 2015:1. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Estimates by WHO U, UNFPA, and WBG, Division tUNP. TRENDS IN MATERNAL MORTALITY. 2000–2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Abebe B, Busza J, Hadush A, Usmael A, Zeleke AB, Sita S, et al. ‘We identify, discuss, act and promise to prevent similar deaths’: a qualitative study of Ethiopia’s Maternal Death Surveillance and Response system. BMJ Global Health. 2017;2(2):e000199. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hounton S, De Bernis L, Hussein J, Graham WJ, Danel I, Byass P, et al. Towards elimination of maternal deaths: maternal deaths surveillance and response. Reprod Health. 2013. Jan 2;10:1. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-10-1 . Pubmed Central PMCID: Pmc3562216. Epub 2013/01/03. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gurara MK, Van Geertruyden J-P, Gutema BT, Draulans V, Jacquemyn Y. Maternity waiting homes as component of birth preparedness and complication readiness for rural women in hard-to-reach areas in Ethiopia. Reproductive health. 2021;18(1):1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tiruneh GT, Getu YN, Abdukie MA, Eba GG, Keyes E, Bailey PE. Distribution of maternity waiting homes and their correlation with perinatal mortality and direct obstetric complication rates in Ethiopia. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2019;19:1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tesfay N, Tariku R, Zenebe A, Woldeyohannes F. Critical factors associated with postpartum maternal death in Ethiopia. Plos one. 2022;17(6):e0270495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Berhan Y, Berhan A. Review of maternal mortality in Ethiopia: a story of the past 30 years. Ethiopian journal of health sciences. 2014;24:3–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ashish K, Nelin V, Wrammert J, Ewald U, Vitrakoti R, Baral GN, et al. Risk factors for antepartum stillbirth: a case-control study in Nepal. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2015;15(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kavita C, Chavda R. Maternal and perinatal outcome in antepartum hemorrhage. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;3(1):221–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.BM S. Gabbe: Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. Saunders, An Imprint of Elsevier; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chufamo N, Segni H, Alemayehu YK. Incidence, contributing factors, and outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage in Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia. Universal Journal of Public Health. 2015;3(4):153–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Takai IU, Sayyadi BM, Galadanci HS. Antepartum hemorrhage: A retrospective analysis from a northern Nigerian teaching hospital. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research. 2017;7(2):112. doi: 10.4103/2229-516X.205819 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Deribe K, Biadgilign S, Amberbir A, Belachew T, Woldemichael K. The road to maternal death in rural southwest Ethiopia. Ethiopian journal of health sciences. 2010;20(1). doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v20i1.69423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Organization WH. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience: World Health Organization; 2016. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ornella Lincetto SM-A, Patricia Gomez, Stephen Munjanja. Antenatal Care. Opportunities for Africa’s Newborns CHAPTER 2.
  • 35.Titaley CR, Hunter CL, Heywood P, Dibley MJ. Why don’t some women attend antenatal and postnatal care services?: a qualitative study of community members’ perspectives in Garut, Sukabumi and Ciamis districts of West Java Province, Indonesia. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2010;10(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-10-61 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ebrahim MA, Zaiton F, Elkamash TH. Clinical and ultrasound assessment in patients with placenta previa to predict the severity of intrapartum hemorrhage. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2013;44(3):657–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Faiz A, Ananth C. Etiology and risk factors for placenta previa: an overview and meta-analysis of observational studies. The Journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine. 2003;13(3):175–90. doi: 10.1080/jmf.13.3.175.190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Martinelli KG, Garcia ÉM, Santos Neto ETd, Gama SGNd. Advanced maternal age and its association with placenta praevia and placental abruption: a meta-analysis. Cadernos de saude publica. 2018;34:e00206116. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00206116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Huang S, Zuo Q, Wang T, Tang X, Ge Z, Lu H, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of repeated antepartum bleeding in 493 placenta previa cases: a retrospective study. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2021:1–6. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2021.1878495 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lankoande M, Bonkoungou P, Ouandaogo S, Dayamba M, Ouedraogo A, Veyckmans F, et al. Incidence and outcome of severe antepartum hemorrhage at the Teaching Hospital Yalgado Ouédraogo in Burkina Faso. BMC Emergency Medicine. 2016;17(1):1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Majumder S, Shah PT, Deliwala KJ, Patel RV, Patel AMDRV, Madiya A Study of foetomaternal outcome of antepartum hemorrhage in pregnancy. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;4(6):1936–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Maurya A, Arya S. Study of Antepartum Haemorrhage & Its Maternal & Perinatal Outcome. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2014;4(2):57–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wasnik SK, Naiknaware SV. Antepartum hemorrhage: causes & its effects on mother and child: an evaluation. Obstet Gynecol Int J. 2015;3(1):00072. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hamadameen AI. The maternal and perinatal outcome in antepartum hemorrhage: A cross-sectional study. Zanco Journal of Medical Sciences (Zanco J Med Sci). 2018;22(2):155–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Jharaik H, Dhiman B, Verma S, Sharma A. Consequences of antepartum hemorrhage and its maternal and perinatal outcome. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019;8(4):1480–7. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jamie Males

16 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-15417DETERMINANTS OF FETO-MATERNAL OUTCOMES OF ANTEPARTUM HEMORRHAGE AMONG WOMEN WHO GAVE BIRTH IN AWI ZONE PUBLIC HOSPITALS, ETHIOPIA, 2021 .PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zegeye,

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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. The reviewer has suggested revisiting your statistical analyses with the aim of identifying the most important factors, and has also provided some other pointers to improve the manuscript. Please respond carefully to all of the reviewer's recommendations when preparing your revision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 30 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,

Jamie Males

Editorial Office

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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We would like to thank Assosa University for financial support to this study and Debre markos University for granting permission to this study. This study was funded by the Assosa University Research and Community Service Directorate”

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

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

“NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

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

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

    a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

   b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please upload a new copy of Figure 1 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/"

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: 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: General comments

The authors put together a good manuscript on the determinants of feto-maternal outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage among women who gave birth in Awi Zone public hospitals , Ethiopia using a case-control methodology. The authors determined that the following were the significant determinants of APH; rural residence, Delay to seek care 12 hours, not having Antenatal care follow up and advanced maternal age. However they do not provide which factors weigh more heavily than others. This also would reflect on strategies to inform policy and practice. I suggest that from their analysis the authors identify the factors in terms of statistical weight and explain the variation and reasons why some factors weigh in heavily than others

Specific comments

In the paragraph on clinical related characteristics of the cases and the controls the authors state the following- “…With regard to parity 117(52.2%) of cases were grand multipara who gave birth to five or more baby followed by multi parity 91(40.6%) and primi-para 16 (7.2%) respectively…” The authors should revise the sentence to change from the use of the word multi parity to multiparous and primiparous women for clarity of the sentence.

The following paragraph also has a list of abbreviations D C, HDp and C/D that need to be written in full for the first time to aid reviewers and readers follow and understand the article

In section 3.3 – The authors write that –“…Most of the women were attained their antenatal care follow up…”. Kindly review the sentence for clarity

**********

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: Jackline Oluoch Aridi

**********

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Review.docx

pone.0297700.s003.docx (12.2KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 8;19(7):e0297700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297700.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Sep 2022

we tried to address all comments and suggestions raised by reviewers.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttable letter.docx

pone.0297700.s004.docx (19.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Rornald Muhumuza Kananura

28 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-15417R1DETERMINANTS OF FETO-MATERNAL OUTCOMES OF ANTEPARTUM HEMORRHAGE AMONG WOMEN WHO GAVE BIRTH IN AWI ZONE PUBLIC HOSPITALS, ETHIOPIA, 2021 .PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zegeye,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR:- use the current report on maternal mortality (Trends in maternal mortality)-Include the regional (SSA) perspective. What are the current estimates and the changes overtime and the major causes? - relatedly, include some statistics on Ethiopia - current estimates, causes and policies in place (see also Reviewer 3 comment). - Describe your study variables and their measurements in this study including how they were initially collected and changed during analysis. It would be better to have them in a table. -In your conclusion (abstract and main paper), include the recommendation-There are many grammar and typo issues that you need to address. - as pointed out by Reviewers 2 and 3, you need to revise your methods section- as pointed out by Reviewer 1, you need to rework on your discussion sections considering your results and the study area's context and current implementation strategies/policies, and other available evidence within or outside Ethiopia. This also applies to the recommendations. - Overall, you need to restructure your manuscript and follow the journal guideline. You can check some of the published papers for guidance.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 12 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-emailutm_source=authorlettersutm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rornald Muhumuza Kananura

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 #2: 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 #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: The text still needs some refinements for publication. In the summary, it is appropriate to include only the sample that was used, 448 women, and not the total that was eligible, 651 women. Finally, consult the Medical Subject Headings (MESH) of the keywords of the study. In the inclusion method, the simple random sampling technique was used to select controls and obtain the final sample. In the results, rewrite the initial paragraph, as the construction does not make it clear whether the results of the sociodemographic characteristics are related to 651 or 448 women in the study. In figure 1, the value informed in the text for the potentially eligible population is different, in the text 651 medical records and in figure 1- 569 medical records.

Reviewer #3: The authors have conducted an interesting analysis about an important topic: DETERMINANTS OF FETO-MATERNAL OUTCOMES OF ANTEPARTUM HEMORRHAGE AMONG WOMEN WHO GAVE BIRTH IN AWI ZONE PUBLIC HOSPITALS, ETHIOPIA, 2021. I encourage them to consider the following points as they revise the manuscript.

Title: The title is clear and relevant.

Abstract

1. Background: Please add clear justification/gap why you conduct this study; there was other studies done in different areas of Ethiopia?

2. Conclusion: Please add what is your recommendation based on your findings

Introduction

1. Please better to add what figure shows about late pregnancy bleeding/APH in Ethiopia.

2. Better to add clear gap… what makes your study differ from others/why you intended to conduct this study area.

Methods

1. Needs to be clarify ‘‘…..the final calculated sample size was 448 (224 cases and 244 controls)’’.

2. Clearly rewrite the inclusion criteria….. ‘‘Inclusion Criteria Women diagnosed with APH and singleton delivery ≥weeks of gestation and who had full information needed for the study were included’’

3. Why you excluded women who diagnosed with multiple pregnancy?

4. Rewrite the operational definition of Antepartum hemorrhage it’s not correct .

Result

1. What does it mean ….651 were diagnosed and managed , and 2.6% of women get complication.

2. Please rewrite again…. ‘‘Women residing in rural areas were 70.6% times more likely to develop poor feto-maternal outcomes compared to women residing in urban areas [AOR= 1.706, 95% CI 1.09, 2.66].’’

3. How ‘‘LNMP remember’’ could be a predictor of Feto-maternal outcomes regarding APH?

Discussion

1. Needs rewriting …. Poor justification.

2. Please add the limitations of this study?

Conclusion:

1. Please better to add and correlate your recommendation with the findings

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Mulualem Silesh

**********

[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. 2024 Jul 8;19(7):e0297700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297700.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 May 2023

we appreciate all academic editors for their valuable review and comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttable letter.docx

pone.0297700.s005.docx (19.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Gizachew Tadele Tiruneh

29 Aug 2023

PONE-D-22-15417R2DETERMINANTS OF FETO-MATERNAL OUTCOMES OF ANTEPARTUM HEMORRHAGE AMONG WOMEN WHO GAVE BIRTH IN AWI ZONE PUBLIC HOSPITALS, ETHIOPIA, 2021.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zegeye,

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.

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Dear authors,

This is an interesting paper that would have clinical as well as public health importance to avert avoidable deaths and morbidities due to APH. However, the paper needs to be revised.

  1. Abstract: the background information is unnecessarily long. Avoid definitions of APH and add take home messages grounded on this study.

  2. The Introduction section mixes the problem statement with significance and rationale of the study. I would suggest restricting as 1) problem statement (that is magnitude of APH, its consequences/outcomes, etc.); 2) what is known and not in the literature (including risk factors or determinants and national efforts). In this case, the last sentence of the first paragraph should come here; 3) and then the significance and/or rationale of the study could follow

  3. Variables and analysis: How distance traveled is measured? Residence could interact with other variables like delay to seek care, ANC follow-up, etc. As such, during analysis, in addition to the collinearity check, I was expecting an examination of the effect modification or interaction effect.

  4. Limitations: Any limitations regarding the missingness of data or records? And what specific variables were not measured due to the retrospective nature of the study.

  5. Discussion: Please summarize the key findings of this study in the first paragraph and then compare the findings with the literature and discuss their implications in subsequent paragraphs. For instance, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 are not primary outcomes of this study. You might discuss them later. Discuss the key determinants first.

  6. Minor: I don’t think charts or records are source and study populations, rather mothers Please correct accordingly

  7. Regarding health system-related variables, I feel some of them are obstetric or clinical factors like ANC follow-up and prolonged hospital stay. Think of it.

  8. Some of the recommendations are not grounded in this study.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 13 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-emailutm_source=authorlettersutm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gizachew Tadele Tiruneh, Ph.D.

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: (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 #3: Yes

**********

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: Thank you for your response …However, still the following points not addressed.

1. Needs to be clarify ‘‘.the final calculated sample size was 448 (224 cases and 244 controls---which yields 468)’’.

2. Why you excluded women who diagnosed with multiple pregnancy?

**********

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: Yes: Mulualem Silesh

**********

[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. 2024 Jul 8;19(7):e0297700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297700.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


6 Oct 2023

We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted (colored) the changes within the manuscript. And a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ and academic editor’s comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0297700.s006.docx (20.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Gizachew Tadele Tiruneh

11 Jan 2024

Determinants of Feto-Maternal outcomes of antepartum hemorrhage among women who gave birth in Awi zone public hospitals, Ethiopia. A case-control study.

PONE-D-22-15417R3

Dear Dr. Zegeye,

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 and the comments forwarded.

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,

Gizachew Tadele Tiruneh, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors,

Please address the comments and language issues highlighted yellow. You might also consult Grammarly or other free language editing software.

Best,

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Gizachew Tadele Tiruneh

22 May 2024

PONE-D-22-15417R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zegeye,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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. Gizachew Tadele Tiruneh

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 Dataset

    (SAV)

    pone.0297700.s001.sav (31.3KB, sav)
    S2 Dataset

    (SPS)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Review.docx

    pone.0297700.s003.docx (12.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttable letter.docx

    pone.0297700.s004.docx (19.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttable letter.docx

    pone.0297700.s005.docx (19.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0297700.s006.docx (20.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES