Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Jul 16;19(7):e0307142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307142

Youth-friendly health service in Ethiopia: Assessment of care friendliness and user’s satisfaction

Andamlak Gizaw Alamdo 1,2,*, Fanna Adugna Debelle 1, Peter Muriuki Gatheru 2, Adom Manu 2, Juliana Yartey Enos 2,3, Tewodros Getinet Yirtaw 4
Editor: Dawit Wolde Daka5
PMCID: PMC11251592  PMID: 39012894

Abstract

Background

Health facilities’ level of readiness to provide adolescent and youth-friendly health services (AYFHS) is crucial for preventing and reducing teenage pregnancies and maternal mortality. This study examined friendliness and satisfaction with AYFHS among users.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 419 adolescents and youths recruited from six health institutions in the East Shewa Zone, Oromia region, and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia from August 1 to October 28, 2022. Based on the WHO Quality Assessment Guidebook, the friendliness of AYFHS was evaluated as a proxy for the quality of care. Descriptive measures were computed to summarize the participants’ socio-demographic characteristics. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the potential association between each independent variable and client satisfaction. The type, magnitude, and precision of association were presented using an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) and a p-value of < 0.05 ascertained statistical significance.

Results

The overall friendliness was 69%: Specifically, 82% of the participants stated the service was accessible, 72% said it was acceptable, and 90% thought it was effective. However, only 33% and 34% of respondents reported the services were equitable and appropriate respectively. The overall satisfaction with AYFHS was 25.3%. Increased age (AOR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57–0.86), being female (AOR = 0.11, 95%CI: 0.04–0.33), no prior information about AYFHS (AOR = 0.20, 95%CI: 0.10–0.44), and higher number of sexual partners (AOR = 0.3, 95%CI: 0.21–0.65) were factors statistically associated with client satisfaction with AYFHS.

Conclusions

The overall quality of AYFHS was sub-optimal and did not meet the four components of WHO’s good quality standards; equity, appropriateness, acceptability, and accessibility must be improved. Female and older adolescents and youths and those with a higher number of sexual partners should be targeted for intervention.

Introduction

Adolescents (10–19 years) and youth (15–24 years) face particular challenges in acquiring services related to sexual and reproductive health [1]. The lack of access to health information and services has resulted in risky sexual behaviours that have increased the prevalence of STIs and HIV and contributed to early pregnancy, susceptible to delivery complications, and high rates of death and disability. In Ethiopia, approximately 45% of the population is under 30 years of age. The greatest number of Ethiopians to reach adulthood in history are young people between the ages of 10 and 24 [2, 3].

In Ethiopia, 14% of females are married before age 15, and 40% get married before turning 18 [4]. Nationally, 13% of females aged 15–19 have already given birth, and 2% are pregnant with their first child [5]. Moreover, only a quarter 23.8% of married females aged 15–19 use any method of contraception. Of young people aged 15–24, 75% do not have comprehensive knowledge about HIV [6].

Adolescent-friendly health services are designed to meet the unique needs of teenagers, providing them with confidential, non-judgmental, and comprehensive care [7]. These services recognize adolescents’ developmental, social, and emotional challenges and aim to create a supportive environment where they feel comfortable seeking help and information [7, 8]. Adolescent and youth-friendly health services (AYFHS) can improve access to health services and improve health outcomes for young people [9]. According to WHO, AYFHS are accessible, acceptable, and appropriate in terms of the right place, time, and affordability [9]. Overall quality of Adolescent and youth-friendly health services can influence the satisfaction levels of young people. Young people’s satisfaction with youth-friendly healthcare is a measure of the extent to which they feel that their healthcare needs are being served in a professional, effective, and useful way. It includes a range of aspects related to their experience, including as accessibility, level of care, privacy, communication with healthcare providers, and the overall environment of the healthcare facility [8, 10]. Low satisfaction may lead to a decrease in the utilization of health services by adolescents and young people. Additionally, young people may avoid seeking care altogether or delay seeking care until their health condition worsens, leading to poorer health outcomes [8]. Moreover, low satisfaction can result in missed opportunities to address preventive healthcare needs and may result in increased risk factors for various health conditions [10, 11].

In the past two decades, the government of Ethiopia has developed several policies and regulations to help implement AYFHS. Ethiopia’s first Adolescent and Youth Reproductive Health Strategy was developed in 2006 and put into practice from 2007 to 2015 [12]. A National Adolescent and Youth Health strategy was developed in 2016 in response to the ongoing changes in the epidemiological profile of adolescents [5]. It is believed that the strategy will enhance and sustain the mainstreaming of adolescents and youth health and rights issues into the country’s growth and transformation agenda.

Although Ethiopia has a national strategy for the reproductive health of adolescents and young people and a cadre of health extension workers (HEWs) who provide primary preventive healthcare at the community level, access to and experience with these health services is limited [13]. Despite the overwhelming load of SRH problems, the adolescent SRH services are still not adequately staffed with qualified professionals, allocated space or time. With little emphasis on services for adolescents and youths, most healthcare facilities provide SRH services as part of standard medical care [13].

To reduce and prevent unintended teenage pregnancies and maternal mortality, which are unacceptably high in Ethiopia, health facilities’ level of preparedness to provide ASRH services is crucial to the extent to which young people use these services [14]. Even though AYFHS has been providing care in Ethiopia for nearly 20 years, there is limited evidence on the level of care that meets international standards. Additionally, the existing literature focuses mainly on examining factors that affect AYFH services utilization and examining quality of care concentrating only on a particular aspect. Therefore, this study provides local, context-specific evidence about the degree of friendliness provided by adolescent and youth health services in Ethiopia by using the WHO Quality Assessment Guidebook [15]. In addition, the study presented the SRH exposure of adolescents and their satisfaction with the services provided in Addis Ababa city administration and the East Shewa zone in the Oromia region, Ethiopia.

Methods

Study design, settings and period

A cross-sectional study was conducted to examine the AYFHS provided by Addis Ababa city administration and the East Shewa zone in the Oromia region, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa is the capital and largest city of Ethiopia. The city is divided into three administrative tiers: one government, 10 sub-cities, and 116 woreda administrations. According to the World Population Review, the population of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, is estimated to be 5.7 million people by 2024. The gender distribution of the population of Addis Ababa shows that women account for 52.4% and males make up around 47.6%. Data indicate that about 2.28 million residents are likely to be under 15 years old [16]. Moreover, according to recent estimates, the East Shewa Zone of Oromia, Ethiopia, is home to about 1.7 million people [17]. During the selection of the study areas, the presence of health facilities rendering AYFHS and accessibility of the health facilities were considered as criteria. Addis Ababa is the capital city of Ethiopia; AYFHS is relatively more accessible to the young population. In addition, Addis Ababa city has functioning youth-friendly health service facilities that provide comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, including counselling, HIV testing, contraceptive services, STI diagnosis, and management. East Shewa zone is one of the administrative zones in the Oromia Regional state, for this study, it represents areas out of the capital where AYFHS is assumed less accessible. In selecting the East Shewa zone, health authorities’ input, historical performances of local health facilities in the provision of health services, geographical variety to capture variation in the quality of health services, and feasibility and resources allocated for the study were taken into account. Addis Ababa has eleven administrative subdivisions, called sub-cities. Each sub-city has at least one health facility providing AYFH services. From Addis Ababa city administration, Yeka Health Center, Yekatit Hospital, Gulelle Health Center, Nefas Silk Lafto wereda 2 Health Center, and Nefas Silk Lafto wereda 6 Health Center were selected for the study. Furthermore, Bosset Health Center from the East Shewa Zone of the Oromia region, Ethiopia. The study was conducted from August 1 to October 28, 2022.

Study participants and selection procedure

All adolescents (10–19 years) and youths (15–24 years) in the Addis Ababa city administration and East Shewa Zone of Oromia region, Ethiopia were the target population. Bosset health center from the East Shewa zone was selected by considering the presence of a youth-friendly corner within the facility, safety, and security to travel the facility. All adolescents (10–19 years) and youths (15–24 years) who visited AYFH services during the study period, in selected health facilities in the study areas, were the study population. Adolescents and youths who utilized AYFH services and lived in the study area for at least six months were eligible to participate in the study. Adolescents and youths with emergency medical issues were excluded from the study.

Sample size and sampling technique

The required sample size for the quantitative study was determined using the single population proportion formula. Taking 50% of adolescents and youths satisfied with AYFH services provided (as there was no published study), Zα/2 = 1.96 for a 95% level of confidence, and d = 5% required level of precision. Therefore, the sample size (n) = 424 was considered after adding 10% for a possible nonresponse rate. There are a total of 86 public health facilities in Addis Ababa of which 11 health facilities are providing AYFHS in Addis Ababa City Administration. From the existing 11 health facilities that deliver AYFHs, five were selected using the lottery method of simple random sampling technique. The health facilities selected in Addis Ababa were Yekatit 12 Hospital, Selam HC, Nefas Silk Lafto Wereda 2 HC, and Nefas Silk Lafto wereda 6 HC. Bosset HC was selected from the East Shewa zone, Oromia region. The adolescents and youths were selected with probability proportional to the number of adolescent and youth clients that each healthcare facility served in the previous year to the start of the study. The study participants were then selected in every other client exit by using systematic random sampling techniques.

Data collection tools and procedures

Data were collected using computer-assisted face-to-face interviews using the Open Data Kit (ODK). The tool was initially developed in English and translated into the local languages (Amharic and Afaan Oromo), and then back-translated to the English language by the language expert, to make sure of its consistency and accuracy. The tool was developed, based on the review of relevant literature [3, 15, 18, 19], to gather information from AYFHS clients on their sociodemographic profiles (age, sex, marital status, educational status, etc.), SRH history (sexuality, pregnancy, contraception use, etc.), AYFH program/service exposure, perception of care friendliness, and satisfaction (S1 File). The WHO Quality Assessment Guidebook: a guide to evaluate health services for adolescent clients was followed as a guideline [15]. Six data collectors with a BSc degree in public health and Midwifery and who have experience working with the young population interviewed the study participants. Moreover, two supervisors with master’s degrees in public health (MPH) closely supervised the data collectors in the field. All the data collectors and supervisors were trained on the objectives of the study, ethical issues, the procedures of data collection, and data collection tools.

Study variables

Existing patterns of adolescent youth-friendly health services (AYFHS) were evaluated based on clients’ exit interviews in selected health facilities. Care friendliness was measured using 19 questions (characteristics) which were grouped into five domains: equity (one characteristic), accessibility (seven characteristics), acceptability (five characteristics), appropriateness (four characteristics), and effectiveness (three characteristics) (S1 Table).

  • Utilization of reproductive health services: refers to the use of reproductive health services including medical check-ups, consultations, Family Planning, health education on HIV/AIDS, and STI treatment services provided in health centers.

  • Hours for young people: refers to the AYFRH unit was opened at times that are convenient for young people to attend. Such times include late afternoons (after school or work), evenings, and weekends.

  • Convenient location: refers to AYFRH unit was easily accessible by foot or public transportation

  • Satisfied: the respondent scored ≥ 6 from 11 points on client satisfaction tools and was satisfied with three items waiting time to get the service, privacy, and feeling comfortable with the services provided [20].

  • To be considered adolescent-friendly, services should have the following characteristics [15].

Equitable. All adolescents, not just certain groups, can obtain the health services they need.

Accessible. Adolescents can obtain the services that are provided.

Acceptable. Health services are provided in ways that meet the expectations of adolescent clients.

Appropriate. The health services that adolescents need are provided.

Effective. The right health services are provided in the right way and make a positive contribution to the health of adolescents.

  • Care friendliness: we categorized the index of expected friendliness in AYFH services for adolescents into three categories: low (<0.80), moderate (0.80–0.89), and high (≥0.90) [19].

Data quality control

Qualified personnel who have experience in quantitative data collection and interview techniques were deployed to collect the data. Data collectors and supervisors were trained to make each person thoroughly familiar with data collection instruments & procedures. Before the actual data collection pre-test was conducted, in health facilities that were not part of the study area, to check for language clarity and response appropriateness. During data collection in the field, data were checked for completeness and accuracy before leaving the data collection site. A standardized WHO quality assessment guide was used to examine care friendliness [15]. Using Cronbach’s alpha reliability test, the overall internal reliability of the survey instrument for assessing client satisfaction was examined, and the scores for the items of each component were more than 0.71.

Data processing and analysis

Before data analysis, data cleaning was carried out through a series of cross-tabulations, frequency tables, and raw data check-ups. Stata16 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas, USA), was used for all data analysis. Descriptive measures were computed to summarize the participants’ socio-demographic characteristics, and the friendliness of AYFHS, a proxy for quality of care was assessed based on the WHO Quality Assessment Guidebook [15]. To calculate the relative score by characteristic, we first determined the percentage of positive answers for each question on the friendliness of care. We then combined the percentages of each question by domain and divided this by the total number of questions to derive a total for each domain within the same range: from zero to one. Lastly, we computed the global score by dividing the total number of questions by the sum of all positive responses for friendliness, following the methodology for each domain that was recommended by the World Health Organisation [15]. The study used both bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess the potential association between each independent variable and client satisfaction. Multiple variable logistic regression analysis was carried out using independent variables that showed a p-value of less than 0.2 in the bi-variable logistic regression. At last, the magnitude and precision of association were presented using an AOR with 95% CI, and a p-value of < 0.05 ascertained statistical significance.

Ethical consideration

The proposal was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of St. Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College (SPHMMC) (Ref. No: P.M23/502/31/03/2022). In addition, before contacting participants, permission was obtained from the Addis Ababa and Oromia regional state health bureaus, and the respective district health offices and health facilities. Verbal informed consent was sought before any data were collected. Asking for written informed consent could cause discomfort for the study participants, who visited the health facilities with caution to avoid getting caught by someone they knew. Moreover, the SPHMMC IRB typically requires verbal informed consent for research that is not clinical trials involving invasive procedures. Hence, verbal informed consent was requested, and moving on to the next set of questions assumes that the adolescents and youths have given their consent to participate. Many adolescents and youths aged less than 18 years utilize AYFH services without consulting their parents/guardians and asking for parental consent might cause emotional harm to adolescents and youths. Due to this, parents’ consent was not sought, and the IRB of SPHMMC waived it. Participants in the study were given enough information regarding the study’s purpose, objective, benefits, and harm. Participants were also informed that their participation is fully voluntary and they have the right to withdraw and jump any question. Privacy and confidentiality were maintained, respectively, by not exposing individual identifiers, not transferring the data to a third party, and using it for research purposes only.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics

A total of 419 adolescents and youths, 319 (76.1%) from Addis Ababa and 100 (23.9%) from the East Shewa zone of the Oromia region took part in the study, yielding a 98.8% response rate. For the study, six health facilities that provide services related to adolescent and youth reproductive health were identified. Of these, 99 (23.6%) were from Yekatit 12 Hospital and nearly a quarter of 100 (23.9%) were from Bosset Health Center. Participants’ median age was 21 (IQR 5), and 340 (81.2%) of them were female, a fairly large proportion. Moreover, the minimum age at first marriage was 15 while the maximum was 24 years and the mean age at first marriage was 19.5 (SD ± 2.0). A large majority 297 (70.9%) of participants were single. Regarding religious affiliation, three-fourths (74.9%) of the study participants were Orthodox Christian followed by Muslim 57 (13.6%). Less than half 170 (40.6%) of the participants reported that they were in school and over a third 147 (35.1%) attended at least primary school (grade 1–8) (Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic and socio-economic background of study participants in East Shewa Zone, Oromia region, and Addis Ababa Ethiopia, October 2022 (n = 419).

Variable Category Number Percent
Region Addis Ababa 319 76.1
East Shewa Zone, Oromia 100 23.9
Health facility Addisu Gebeya HC 62 14.8
Nifas Silik Lafto wereda 2 HC 73 17.4
Nifas Silik Lafto wereda 6 HC 41 9.8
Bosset HC 100 23.9
Selam HC 44 10.5
Yekatit 12 Hospital 99 23.6
Sex Female 340 81.2
Male 79 18.9
Age 19 years or less 130 31.0
20–24 years 289 68.9
Religion Orthodox 314 74.9
Muslim 57 13.6
Protestant 42 10.0
Catholic 4 1.0
Other* 2 0.5
Marital status Single 297 70.9
Married 114 27.2
Divorced/Separated 8 1.9
Educational level Primary Level (1–8) 147 35.1
Secondary Level (9–12) 142 33.9
Over Secondary Level 122 29.1
Other** 8 1.9
Current Educational Status In-School 170 40.6
Out-of-School 249 59.4

*No religion, Waqefeta

**No education

HC, health center

Sexuality, pregnancy, and contraception history of study participants

In this study, eighty percent 336 (80.2%) of the study participants ever had sexual intercourse. Of these, 289 (86%) had sexual intercourse in the last six months before the survey period. For those who had started sexual intercourse, the minimum age at first sex was 11 years while the mean age at first sex was 18 (SD ± 2.0). In addition, the minimum number of sexual partners reported was 1 while the maximum was 18 and the median number of sexual partners were 2 with IQR (1 3). A total of 204 (70.6%) adolescents and youths utilized a method to prevent pregnancy or disease. Among these, nearly a third of the participants used pills 69 (33.8%) and injectables 62 (30.4%). When asked about the contraceptive method to be taken within 72 hrs. to prevent unwanted pregnancy, a considerable number 272 (64.9%) reported emergency contraceptives while nearly one-third 134 (31.9%) of them didn’t respond/couldn’t mention one.

The study also revealed the minimum age at first pregnancy to be 14 years and the median age at first pregnancy was 20 (IQR 2). Just over forty percent 112 (41%) of female participants had ever been pregnant. Of these, more than half 63 (56.3%) gave birth while nearly a quarter 27 (24.1%) experienced induced abortion. Twenty-one (77.8%) participants who faced induced abortion reported private clinic 21 (77.8%) as the place of induced abortion. Regarding the history of contraception use, 191 (70%) female participants reported the use of any contraception method. Among these, 93 (48.7%) got contraceptive methods from public health facilities and 61 (31.9%) from pharmacies (Table 2).

Table 2. Study participants’ history of sexuality, pregnancy, and contraception in East Shewa Zone, Oromia region, and Addis Ababa Ethiopia, October 2022 (n = 419).

Variables Category Number Percent
Have you ever had sexual intercourse? (n = 419) Yes 336 80.2
No 83 19.8
Had sexual intercourse in the last six month? (n = 336) Yes 289 86.0
No 47 14.0
Did you use a method to prevent pregnancy or disease? (n = 289) Yes 204 70.6
No 40 13.8
Don’t remember/No response 45 15.6
Which method(s) did you use? (n = 204) Condom 28 13.7
Pills 69 33.8
Injectables 62 30.4
IUD/Loop 23 11.3
Norplant 48 23.5
Safe days/Rhythm 3 1.5
Withdrawal 1 0.5
Other* 3 1.5
Contraceptive method to be taken within 72 hrs to prevent unwanted pregnancy? (n = 419) Emergency Contraceptive 272 64.9
Condom 4 1.0
Injectables 9 2.2
Don’t know/No response 134 31.9
Ever been pregnant? (n = 273) Yes 112 41.0
No 161 59.0
How did the pregnancy end? (n = 112) Gave birth 63 56.3
Still birth 16 14.3
Spontaneous abortion 6 5.4
Induced abortion 27 24.1
Place of induced abortion (n = 27) Project HF 6 22.2
Private clinic 21 77.8
Do you use contraceptive? (n = 273) Yes 191 70.0
No 82 30.0
Where did you collect the contraceptive? (n = 191) Project HF 93 48.7
Private clinic 35 18.3
Pharmacy 61 31.9
Other** 2 1.1

*Emergency contraceptive pills

** Hospitals and health center outside their catchment

HF, health facility

IUD, Intrauterine device

AYFH program/service exposure of study participants

Only about half 219 (52.3%) of adolescents and youths in this study had prior information about the presence of AYFHS in the health facilities. Of these, a considerable number 137 (62.6%) got the information from their friends followed by healthcare personnel 49 (22.4%). When asked what services were provided in the HF, a very large majority 158 (72.2%) responded comprehensive contraception followed by STIs diagnosis and treatment 115 (52.2%). Among the study participants who had information about AYFHS, almost all participants 198 (90.4%) ever visited AYFHS service in the HF and the main reason for their visit was comprehensive contraception 82 (41.4%) and pregnancy test 42 (21.2%). When asked about any obstacles to getting AYFH services, 61 (16%) participants reported there were challenges to getting the services. Of these, an overwhelming number 53 (86.9%) mentioned lack of privacy and confidentiality, fear of being seen by family/neighbours 26 (42.6%), and working hours are not convenient 16 (26.2%). Concerning the recommended arrangements for the AYFH services, 344 (82.7%) reported special rooms, recreational sites 218 (52.4%), and special times 124 (29.8%) (Table 3).

Table 3. Study participants’ exposure to AYFH program or services in East Shewa Zone, Oromia region, and Addis Ababa Ethiopia, October 2022 (n = 419).

Variables Category Number Percent
Have information about AYFHS service in the facility? (n = 419) Yes 219 52.3
No 200 47.7
Source of information? (n = 219) Friends 137 62.6
Health personnel 49 22.4
Teachers 1 0.5
Parents 24 10.9
Public announcement 8 3.7
What services are provided in the HF*? (n = 219) Comprehensive abortion care 81 36.9
Comprehensive contraceptive 158 72.2
Pregnancy test 112 51.1
STIs diagnosis and treatment 115 52.5
Other* 7 3.2
Ever visited the AYFH service in the HF? (n = 219) Yes 198 90.4
No 21 9.6
Reason for your visit? (n = 198) Comprehensive abortion care 25 12.6
Comprehensive contraceptive 82 41.4
Pregnancy test 42 21.2
STIs diagnosis and treatment 33 16.7
Other** 83 41.9
Any obstacles to get AYFH services? (n = 419) Yes 61 14.6
No 358 85.4
What are the obstacles? (n = 61) HF too far 10 16.4
Fear of seen by family/neighbours 26 42.6
Lack of privacy and confidentiality 53 86.9
Providers’ judgmental attitude 4 6.6
Waiting time is too long 1 1.6
Working hours are not convenient 16 26.2
Other*** 1 1.6
Don’t know/No response 1 1.6
Any recommended arrangement for AYFH services? (n = 419) Yes 416 99.3
No 3 0.7
What are the recommended arrangements for AYFH services? (n = 416) Special room 344 82.7
Special time 124 29.8
Weekend service 119 28.6
Reading corner 112 26.9
Recreational sites 218 52.4
Preference of AYFH service provider? (n = 419) Yes 418 99.8
No 1 0.2

*Urine test, Advice, I don’t know, Condom

**other medical services

*** lack of information

AYFHS, adolescent and youth-friendly health services; HF, health facility

Level of friendliness with AYFHS from the users’ perspective

As shown in Table 4 and Fig 1 below, 82% of the participants stated the service was accessible, 72% reported it was acceptable, and 90% thought the service was effective. However, only 33% and 34% of respondents reported the services were equitable and appropriate respectively. Specifically, about a third of adolescents and youths (66%) believed that there were no policies and procedures in place that ensure equitable health care. The lowest reported appropriateness characteristics were the availability of peer support/mentorship (24%) and youth-friendly educational activities that address topics based on adolescent’s interests (24%). Additionally, only 31% of adolescents and youths stated the services were advertised in places where they congregate.

Table 4. Friendliness of AYFH services according to characteristics and domains in East Shewa Zone, Oromia region, and Addis Ababa Ethiopia, October 2022.

Domain Characteristics Score
Equitable Are procedures in place to ensure that no young people are excluded from services? 0.33
Relative score 0.33
Accessible Is information and referrals provided about where young people can access other youth-friendly health or social services in the community? 0.27
Have you found the waiting times too long before seeing the health-care providers? 0.60
Are the working days and working hours of the health facility convenient for you? 0.99
Are services located in an area that is accessible to youth and safe for them to travel to? 0.99
Are services free of cost or affordable for young people? 1
Are you able to access all of their health services in one visit? 0.97
Are there separate clinic hours or waiting areas just for young people? 0.9
Relative score 0.82
Appropriate Does the site have posters, brochures and other IEC materials that target young people, including information about their rights? 0.57
Are the services advertised to young people in places where they congregate (e.g., schools, youth clubs, recreation centers, etc.)? 0.3
Is peer support or mentoring available? 0.23
Are educational activities youth-friendly and address topics of interest to youth? (e.g., role plays, theatre, games, etc.) 0.24
Relative score 0.34
Acceptable Are youth involved in program design, delivery, and evaluation? 0.27
Are young people greeted warmly upon entering? 0.97
Are sessions conducted in an area that provides privacy so that nobody can see or hear the conversations taking place? 0.64
Do you think that your parents/guardians would be supportive of you coming to this health facility for reproductive health services? 0.99
Do you believe that the information you shared with the health-care provider will be kept confidential? 0.73
Relative score 0.72
Effective Are condoms/other methods available to young people on-site? 0.72
Competent health-care providers 0.98
Does the site have a youth-friendly strategy or action plan in place? 0.99
Relative score 0.90
Friendliness Global score 0.69

Fig 1. Components of AYFHS from the client’s perspective in East Shewa Zone, Oromia region, and Addis Ababa Ethiopia, October 2022.

Fig 1

In comparison, an overwhelming proportion of (82%) adolescents and youths believed that service was accessible in terms of service affordability/ services free of cost (100%) and the point of health service delivery has convenient hours of operation (99%). Despite this, only 27% of the participants were well-informed about the range of available health services and referral linkage with other youth-friendly or social services in the community (Table 4).

Client satisfaction with adolescent and youth friendly health services

In this study, the level of client satisfaction with the service provided at adolescent and youth units was assessed using eleven characteristics of care. Accordingly, the overall satisfaction with AYFH service in the study area was 68.9%. Besides this, the overall client satisfaction was also evaluated using three mandatory criteria: waiting time to receive the service, privacy, and feeling comfortable with the services offered, and satisfaction with at least six items out of eleven characteristics of care to categorize adolescents and youths as satisfied with AYFHS or not. This led to the documentation of a low overall client satisfaction rate of 25.3%.

Concerning the characteristics of care, nearly all adolescents and youths were satisfied with service accessibility (96.9%), service affordability (99.8%), and the welcoming physical facility (99.8%). Similarly, almost all (98.9%) would recommend the health site to a friend who needed similar help. While 92.4% felt comfortable talking to all of the people working at the health facility, and 94.8% believed that everything they discussed with healthcare providers would remain confidential. A considerable number of study participants (63.5%) were satisfied with the privacy in the treatment/consultation room. However, only a third (35.1%) of adolescents and youths were satisfied with the acceptability of the waiting time and just over thirty percent (30.1%) of and less than thirty percent (27.9%) were satisfied with referral linkage and provider-client interaction respectively. Furthermore, only 19.8% of adolescents and youths felt well with the healthcare facility’s service providers (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Overall AYFH service satisfaction among adolescents and youths in East Shewa Zone, Oromia region, and Addis Ababa Ethiopia, October 2022.

Fig 2

Factors associated with adolescent and youth client satisfaction

In Bivariate analysis, AYFHS satisfaction was significantly associated with age, educational status, current educational status, marital status, number of sexual partners, and AYFH service information. After adjustment for confounding factors, this study identified four variables that had statistically significant associations with adolescent and youth-friendly health services satisfaction. Accordingly, female adolescents and youths were 89% less likely to be satisfied with AYFH services compared to males (AOR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.04–0.33). Additionally, for a unit increase in the age of adolescents and youth, the odds of satisfaction with AYFH services would decrease by 30% (AOR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57–0.86). Moreover, the study indicated that a higher number of sexual partners was associated with decreased odds of satisfaction with AYFH services (AOR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.21–0.65). Furthermore, the odds of adolescents and youth who had no prior information about AYFH services had 80% lower odds of satisfaction with AYFH services (AOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.10–0.44) (Table 5).

Table 5. Factors associated with AYFH service satisfaction among adolescents and youths in East Shewa Zone, Oromia region, and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, October 2022.

Variables AYFRH service satisfaction COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Yes (%) No (%)
Age Mean age 18.68 21.68 0.64 (0.58–0.71)* 0.70 (0.57–0.86)*
Sex Male 23 (29.11) 56 (70.89) 1 1
Female 83 (24.41) 257 (75.59) 0.79 (0.46–1.36) 0.11 (0.04–0.33)*
Educational status Primary 56 (38.10) 91 (61.90) 1 1
Secondary 38 (26.76) 104 (73.24) 0.60 (0.36–0.98)* 1.84 (0.75–4.54)
Over secondary 12 (9.84) 110 (90.16) 0.18 (0.09–0.35)* 1.33 (0.40–4.47)
Other 0 8 (100) 0 0
Current Educational status Currently in School 61 (35.88) 109 (64.12) 1 1
Out of school 45 (18.07) 204 (81.93) 0.39 (0.25–0.62)* 2.19 (0.89–5.42)
Marital status Single 90 (30.30) 207 (69.70) 1 1
Ever married 16 (13.1) 106 (86.9) 0.35 (0.19–0.62)* 1.40 (0.58–3.40)
Number of sexual Partner Mean 1.35 2.67 0.46 (0.28–0.70)* 0.37 (0.21–0.65)*
AYFH service information Yes 83 (37.90) 136 (62.10) 1 1
No 23 (11.50) 177 (88.50) 0.21 (0.13–0.36)* 0.20 (0.10–0.44)*

"1’ indicates the reference/baseline category for binary and multivariable logistic regression analysis

AYFHS, adolescent and youth-friendly health services; COR: crude odds ratio; AOR: adjusted odds ratio; CI: confidence interval

*Represents statistically significant association

Discussion

This study presented the adolescents’ and youth health service exposure of adolescents, care friendliness, and their satisfaction with the services provided in Addis Ababa city administration and East Shewa zone in the Oromia region, Ethiopia. According to the findings, the perceived quality of AYFHS from Adolescents’ and youth’s perspectives is sub-optimal (overall friendliness was 69%). Only one-third of adolescents and youths reported that the services were appropriate (34%) and equitable (33%). Low appropriateness of service (34%) resulted from the scarcity of peer support groups in the health facilities, lack of youth-friendly educational activities that address topics based on adolescents’ interests, and services not well advertised at young people gatherings such as schools, and youth clubs. These findings are similar to a study from Plateau State Nigeria where the overall SRH services in the state were not appropriate for adolescents [21]. This finding is also consistent with an assessment conducted using a similar methodology on youth-friendly health services in two South African provinces [22]. The study revealed that all primary care health facilities failed to meet the recommended standards for providing adolescent and youth-friendly health services.

One of the criteria for youth-friendly health services is all adolescents should be able to obtain the health services they need. Moreover, the existence of policies and procedures to ensure equitable health services is crucial [15, 19]. Despite this, the current study demonstrated inequitable health services (67%) due to a lack of procedures to ensure no young people are excluded from services. This calls for the implementation of process guidelines for comprehensive adolescent health as well as the updating of such policies and procedures [23].

Even though nearly three-fourths (72%) of the study participants reported services were acceptable, the active participation of adolescents and youths during program design, delivery, and evaluation was only 28%. However, studies have demonstrated that such involvement is essential to the successful functioning and delivery of health services [19, 24]. Moreover, it has been reported that adolescents who actively participate in program design and implementation are more likely to use contraception, engage in safe sexual practices, and have more favorable attitudes toward sexuality [24].

Regarding the accessibility and effectiveness of services, over eighty percent (82%) and 90% of adolescents and youths respectively, believed the service to be accessible and effective. The characteristics that resulted in high accessibility were service affordability/ the provision of services free of charge (100%) and convenient hours of operation (99%). The level of accessibility reported in the current study was inconsistent with a Mexican study where adolescents believe that friendly services are mainly out of reach because of administrative and financial obstacles in the rules and regulations [19]. The possible difference in accessibility of services might be due to differences in the study area. The majority of health facilities assessed in the current study were from the nation’s capital city where basic health services coverage is relatively higher.

It has been reported that having trained providers and youth-friendly strategies in health facilities is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of AYFH services. Our results demonstrated that the AYFH service was seen to be effective (90%). Specifically, almost all health providers (98%) got the required training to work with youths and provide services, and also nearly all (99%) health facilities have youth-friendly strategies. This finding is higher than the AYFHS effectiveness documented in Nigeria [21], Mexico [19], and South Africa [22]. The possible reason for the difference can be explained by the difference in the characteristics assessed to measure the effectiveness and also the location of health facilities. The higher effectiveness of the service reported in the current study can contribute to the delivery of the right health service and can positively impact the health of adolescents in the study areas.

The overall satisfaction with AYFH service in the study area was 25.3%. This finding is lower than the level of satisfaction reported in northeast Ethiopia (47.2%) [11], Arba Minch, southern Ethiopia (49.1%) [25], and South Africa (81.7%) [10]. The possible reason for the difference can be the difference in the satisfaction measurement used in these studies. For example, the current study used eleven items for measuring adolescents’ and youths’ satisfaction. Out of these, the respondents who scored ≥ 6 from 11 points on client satisfaction tools and three compulsory items namely waiting time to get the service, privacy, and feeling comfortable with the services provided were used to assess satisfaction based on experts’ recommendations. These criteria appear to be one of the most significant characteristics that have a strong link with client satisfaction [20, 26]. Another possible explanation can be the differences in study settings and the socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the study population. The majority of participants in this study (81.2%) were female, and their median age (IQR) was more than 21 (5), which is significantly higher than the average age and sex of adolescents and youths found in prior studies conducted in southern and northeast Ethiopia [2, 25].

Age was found to be a significant predictor of AYH service satisfaction in our study; for every unit increase in the age of adolescents and youths, the likelihood of being satisfied with AYFH services dropped by 30%. This finding is consistent with a study done in southern Ethiopia [25] and Germany [8]. According to a study done in Germany, younger teenagers reported higher levels of satisfaction than older ones [8]. This might be explained by the fact that older adolescents have greater health concerns, have more sophisticated understanding and cognitive abilities, and start to formulate autonomous opinions about their social environments may contribute to a decrease in age satisfaction. However, a Mongolian study reveals that younger adolescents are less satisfied. This possible reason can be differences in service expectations, as well as the type and delivery of health services for adolescents [25, 27].

The study documented that female adolescents and youths were 89% less likely to be satisfied with AYFH services compared to males (AOR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.04–0.33). This finding conflicts with research conducted in Dessie town, Ethiopia, which found that female adolescents had higher satisfaction with AYFH services [28]. Male has a stronger correlation with young-friendly SRH service consumption, particularly in Ethiopia, which may account for their greater levels of satisfaction with the service [1, 29]. This is because men are free to engage in society and are less likely to face judgment from medical professionals [1]. A low incidence of AYFH service utilization may be linked to varying expectations of healthcare services and a lack of knowledge about certain healthcare services, both of which could lower satisfaction levels.

Additionally, the study showed that adolescents and youth who had no prior information about AYFH services had 80% lower odds of satisfaction with AYFH services (AOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.10–0.44). This finding is in line with a systematic review of the quality of AYFH services, where those adolescents and youths who were informed about AYFH services had 1.6 times higher satisfaction [30]. This is consistent with the fact that access to information is essential for making use of the services and ensuring client satisfaction [18].

Furthermore, the study revealed that a higher number of sexual partners was associated with decreased odds of satisfaction with AYFH services (AOR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.21–0.65). The possible reason can be adolescents who have a higher number of sexual partners might be reluctant to open up to healthcare providers about their experiences, which makes it more difficult for them to build trust and establish harmonious relationships. Moreover, differences in the adolescent’s behaviour, healthcare providers’ attitude towards adolescents with multiple sexual partners [1], type of services requested, and services provided to adolescents [30] could also result in a disparity in satisfaction. For instance, a US study found that teenagers with several sexual partners have a greater likelihood of substance use [31].

Strength of the study

Two main strengths of our study are: (i) Using data from a representative sample of adolescent users, we showed the degree to which AYFHS adheres to the standard of quality of care under the WHO friendliness domains. The WHO guidelines are often based on extensive research and evidence-based practices. The utilization of the guideline to measure youth-friendliness in health services promotes consistency, evidence-based practices, and quality improvement, ultimately leading to better health outcomes for young people (ii) We have measured client satisfaction using factors that significantly influence how young people use services, including waiting time to get the service, privacy, and feeling comfortable with the services provided as a mandatory criterion for satisfaction. To better align services with youth preferences and to increase trust and engagement with healthcare services, client satisfaction must be measured using factors that have a significant impact on how young people use services.

Limitations of the study

This study was restricted to looking at the quality of services/care friendliness from the users’ perspective. However, interviews with AYFHS health managers or healthcare professionals were not conducted for this study, which would have provided important information on supply-side perceptions of AYFHS quality. The use of exit interviews as sources of client satisfaction has another limitation in that they are conducted with a sample of clients who have already decided to visit a particular healthcare facility and are likely under the assumption that it will be at least satisfactory. Moreover, because the data analyzed were self-reported by adolescents and youths, social desirability and recall bias are possible.

Conclusion

This study has highlighted the AYFH service exposure of adolescents, care friendliness, and their satisfaction with the services provided in Addis Ababa city administration and East Shewa zone in the Oromia region, Ethiopia. The quality of AYFH services provided at the health facilities did not meet all the five components of AYFHS, as nearly two-thirds of adolescents and youths perceived the AYFHS in the study settings to be inequitable and inappropriate. Additionally, adolescents and young people thought that AYFH services were moderately accessible and had a low acceptability rate. On the other hand, among the five AYFHS components, high effectiveness is documented. Overall client satisfaction with AYFH service in Addis Ababa city and the East Shewa zone of Oromia, Ethiopia was low. Variables such as age, sex, number of sexual partners, and prior information about AYFH services were significantly associated with client satisfaction with adolescent and youth-friendly health services.

To improve the standard of AYFHS offered at the healthcare facilities, relevant policymakers and health managers should develop and properly implement policies that do not impose any limitations on healthcare provision and provide the required healthcare package to fulfill the needs of all adolescents. It is also essential to allow adolescents to share their experiences obtaining health services and express their needs and preferences. Furthermore, future research should look into evaluating the quality of services using an observation checklist for healthcare facilities and directly assessing the healthcare from the perspective of providers and managers. Lastly, to enhance adolescents’ and youth’s satisfaction with AYFH services, female and older adolescents and youths, information about AYFH services and a higher number of sexual partners should be targeted for intervention.

Supporting information

S1 File. English version of the questionnaire.

(PDF)

pone.0307142.s001.pdf (135.7KB, pdf)
S1 Table. Measurement/scoring sheet/ for the five domains of care friendliness.

(PDF)

pone.0307142.s002.pdf (76.5KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all adolescents and youths who participated in this study. We would like to express our gratitude to health managers, health workers, and data collectors in all participating health facilities. We thank Dorothy L. Southern for providing scientific writing advice and critically reviewing the manuscript.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The study was sponsored by St. Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College Research and Resources Mobilization Directorate. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Population Council. Understanding adolescent and youth sexual and reproductive health; [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://knowledgecommons.popcouncil.org/departments_sbsr-rh [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://knowledgecommons.popcouncil.org/departments_sbsr-rh [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Demeke F, Yohannes T, Abera N, Belayneh F, Nigussie S. Youth friendly services utilization and associated factors among school youths in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia: A mixed-method study. SAGE Open Med. 2022;10. doi: 10.1177/20503121221112025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. National adolescents and youth health strategy (2021–2025). Addis Ababa: Federal democratic republic of Ethiopia Ministry of health; 2021 [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Admassu TW, Wolde YT, Kaba M. Ethiopia has a long way to go meeting adolescent and youth sexual reproductive health needs. Reproductive Health. 2022;19:1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. National Adolescent and Youth Health Strategy. Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.UNFPA. Adolescents and Youth Dashboard, Ethiopia. [Internet]. 2021. [cited 2023 Nov 29]. Available from: http://www.unfpa.org/data/adolescent-youth/ET [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Organization WH. Making health services adolescent friendly: developing national quality standards for adolescent friendly health services. 2012. [cited 2024 Jun 1]; Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/75217/9789241503594_eng.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schmidt S, Thyen U, Herrmann-Garitz C, Bomba F, Muehlan H. The Youth Health Care measure-satisfaction, utilization, and needs (YHC-SUN)-development of a self-report version of the Child Health Care (CHC-SUN) proxy-measure. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016. May 20;16(1). doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1419-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.World Health Organization. Adolescent-Friendly Health Services: An Agenda for Change [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. [cited 2023 Nov 28]. Available from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q= [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mayeye FB, Lewis HA, Oguntibeju OO. An assessment of adolescent satisfaction with reproductive primary healthcare services in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. The West Indian Medical Journal. 2010. Jun;59(3):274–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gebrie M, Asrade G, Tsehay CT, Yazachew L, Dellie E. Quality of adolescent and youth-friendly health services in Dehana district public health facilities, northeast Ethiopia: Using the Donabedian quality framework. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021. Oct 20;16(10):e0258718. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258718 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ministry of Women, Children, and Youth Affairs. Ethiopia Adolescent and Youth Status Report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Women, Children, and Youth Affairs; 2014.
  • 13.Haile B, Shegaze M, Feleke T, Glagn M, Andarge E. Disparities in utilization of sexual and reproductive health services among high school adolescents from youth friendly service implemented and non-implemented areas of Southern Ethiopia. Archives of Public Health. 2020. Dec 1;78(1). doi: 10.1186/s13690-020-00508-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.World Health Organization. Global health estimates (GHE). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Peattie Siobhan, World Health Organization. Quality assessment guidebook: a guide to assessing health services for adolescent clients. World Health Organization; 2009. 104 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.World Population Review. Addis Ababa Population. World Population Review; [cited 2024 Jun 25]; Available from: https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/addis-ababa-population. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Population Projection. Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia. [cited 2024 Jun 25]; Available from: https://www.statsethiopia.gov.et/population-projection/. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.World Health Organization. Global Standards for Quality Health-Care Services for Adolescents: The Quality of Health-Care Services for Adolescents [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. [cited 2023 Nov 28]. Available from: https://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/global-standards-adolescent-care/en/ [Google Scholar]
  • 19.García-Bello LA, Heredia-Pi IB, Zavala-Arciniega L, Paz-Ballesteros W, Velázquez-Viamonte A, Serván-Mori E. Care friendliness in adolescent sexual and reproductive health services in Mexico and a characterisation of their clients. International Journal of Health Planning and Management. 2022. Dec 1;37(S1):204–19. doi: 10.1002/hpm.3512 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mazur A, Brindis CD, Decker MJ. Assessing youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services: A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018. Mar 27;18(1). doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-2982-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Envuladu EA, Massar K, de Wit J. Adolescent sexual and reproductive health care service availability and delivery in public health facilities of plateau state nigeria. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. Feb 2;18(4):1–11. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Geary RS, Webb EL, Clarke L, Norris SA. Evaluating youth-friendly health services: Young people’s perspectives from a simulated client study in urban South Africa. Glob Health Action. 2015;8(1). doi: 10.3402/gha.v8.26080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Strode A, Essack Z. Facilitating access to adolescent sexual and reproductive health services through legislative reform: Lessons from the South African experience. South African Medical Journal. 2017;107(9):741–4. doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2017.v107i9.12525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Villa-Torres L, Svanemyr J. Ensuring youth’s right to participation and promotion of youth leadership in the development of sexual and reproductive health policies and programs. J Adolesc Health. 2015;56(1):S51–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.07.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mulugeta B, Girma M, Kejela G, Meskel FG, Andarge E, Zerihun E. Assessment of Youth-Friendly Service Quality and Associated Factors at Public Health Facilities in Southern Ethiopia: A Facility-Based Cross-Sectional Study. BioMed Research International 2019;2019(1):9696278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mehra S, Sogarwal R, Nair V, Satpati M, Tiwari R, Dwivedi K. Title of the article. Indian J Public Health Res Dev [Internet]. 2013. Apr-Jun;5(2):123–9. Available from: https://example.com/article [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sovd T, Mmari K, Lipovsek V, Manaseki-Holland S. Acceptability as a key determinant of client satisfaction: lessons from an evaluation of adolescent friendly health services in Mongolia. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2006. May 1;38(5):519–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.03.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sharew Y, Amano A, Zeleke H, Mekonnen M. Satisfaction with Youth Friendly Reproductive Health Services among Youth in Dessie Youth Friendly Clinics, North East Ethiopia. Journal of Nursing & Care. 2017;06(03). [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Belay HG, Arage G, Degu A, Getnet B, Necho W, Dagnew E, et al. Youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services utilization and its determinants in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2021. Dec 1;7(12). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zenebe GA, Ewunie TM, Belay MM, Abose AM. Quality of adolescent and youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services and associated factors in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2023;11:123–45. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1191676 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Santelli JS, Brener ND, Lowry R, Bhatt A, Zabin LS. Multiple Sexual Partners Among U.S. Adolescents and Young Adults. Perspect Sex Reprod Health [Internet]. 1998. [cited 2023 Nov 29];30(6):271–5. Available from: https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/1998/11/multiple-sexual-partners-among-us-adolescents-and-young-adults [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dawit Wolde Daka

13 May 2024

PONE-D-24-06588Youth-friendly health service in Ethiopia: Assessment of care friendliness and user’s satisfactionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alamdo,

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:  

  • Please provide adequate justification how the study areas (Addis Ababa city administration and East shewa zone of Oromia region) are selected. 

  • To make more informative and ensure replicability, reorganize methods section in the following way:
    • Study design, setting and period
    • Study participants and selection procedure (the study participants; sample size; sampling techniques; inclusion/exclusion criteria employed) 
    • Data collection tools and procedures (describe contents of the tool, whether tools are adapted or developed, sources, methods of data collection, data collectors and supervisors [background and qualifications, any training given]; upload the English version of the questionnaire as supplementary material)
    • Study variables (definition and measurement of the variables)
    • Data quality control 
    • Data processing and analysis 
    • Ethical consideration 
  • Figures should be self-explanatory (add axis titles); describe all abbreviations used within tables as table footnotes 

  • Discuss both strength and limitations of the study

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 27 2024 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dawit Wolde Daka

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

[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: Yes

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Reviewer comment to author

1. The study presents the results of primary scientific research. -yes

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.-yes

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.-yes

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data-yes.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English-moderate/requires further modification.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity-yes/requires some details about waiver of assent for age under 18.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability-yes/but authors must submit STROBE checklist for cross sectional study.

General comments

� Unnecessary use of words like “we” in page 2 line 31-32. Revise it.

� What was the research gap regarding intention of women to give birth at health facility? If any put your strong justification in final paragraph of the background.

� In background part you should describe YFS and YFS satisfaction briefly.

� The problem was not well stated in introduction part. What was problem of friendliness? What was the problem of satisfaction? Consequences of poor satisfaction?

� Describe the characteristics of study population regarding youth friendly services and health facility availability/accessibility, trained health care provider availability and other important information in your study setting.

� I’m not satisfied with selection criteria for selecting one health center from east showa zone? Can we say it representative for all other health facilities in the zone?

� Study period must be specified. Specific date of commencement and final date of data collection was not specified. You said from August to October 2022. See page 6 line 100

� Measurement of accessibility, equity, acceptability, appropriateness,effectiviness must be clearly mentioned.

� There was a problem of organizing your manuscript with appropriate sequence. For example sample size determination and sampling procedure must be organized before data collection procedure. Revise it.

� You haven’t used supervisors? Why?

� What method was used to control data quality?

� Have you checked multi-collinearity of independent variables?

� Have you checked model fittnesss?

� Reccomendation must be specific and must address significant variables. But your recommendation was too general. See page 27 line 481-486.

Overall comment

Manuscript was well written and the problem under the study was interesting public health issue. My concern was justification for this study because the problem must be well stated. Measurement of accessibility, equity, acceptability, appropriateness,effectiviness must be clearly mentioned. Some editorial, topographic and description problem should be corrected.

Final decision- Accept with minor modification.

Reviewer #2: Title: “Youth-friendly health service in Ethiopia: Assessment of care friendliness and user’s satisfaction”

Thank you for inviting me the paper to review. The manuscript assessed friendliness and satisfaction level and their factors through a cross sectional study. Although quality and satisfaction of AYHS could be addressed under many qualitative and quantitative studies of “utilization of AYHS, the problem is still more contextual and may provide additional information to scientific and policy makers. But, the paper may benefit from revising the following comments.

Background

• Your justification “Even though 89 AFHS has been providing care in Ethiopia for nearly 20 years, there is a shortage of scientific research on the level of care that meets international standards” need to be more argued. Because there are many quantitative and qualitative why adolescents were not utilizing the AYFS, indirectly the issue of quality and satisfaction. What would this study makes a difference over those studies?

Methods

• How 50% of adolescents are assumed to be satisfied where there are many studies exploring many challenges why adolescents were not using the service. Could it be fair to assume there is no study while there are many studies? And, dependent variables are two in this study, “friendliness” and “satisfaction level”. Did you have any other justification why you did calculate separate sample size and compare the two to select the larger sample size?

• You selected health facilities first, then systematically selected adolescents and the study is also facility based, therefore, there could be larger variance. Why you were not considering other sample size determination techniques like design effect to increase your sample?

• Could the study be generalizable? Because usually most awarded adolescents are usually come frequently and they could have adequate knowledge about the characteristics of your interest. But, majority may not! Don’t you think that this is your limitation of the study?

• In your analysis, is it fair all the items in each construct could have reasonable factor loading despite easy to assume that they have reasonable reliability coefficients?

• “Many adolescents and youths aged less than 18 years utilize AYFH services without consulting their parents/guardians and asking for parental consent might cause emotional harm to adolescents and youths. Due to this, parents’ consent was not sought, and it was waived by the IRB of SPHMMC.” Could the IRB of SPHMMC waive anyone’s harm or benefit or autonomous? Parents should have been convinced or otherwise it could have been better excluded those under eight adolescents than justifying this way?

Results section

• The subheading “Demographic and socio-economic background of study participants” could have been shortened.

• In table 5, how one could know how many variables were taken to the multivariable logistic regression, and which of those are not associated ?

**********

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: Elias Amaje Hadona

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yitagesu Habtu

**********

[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 16;19(7):e0307142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307142.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Jun 2024

Rebuttal Letter

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

June 1, 2024

Dear academic editor,

Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled, "Youth-friendly health service in Ethiopia: Assessment of care friendliness and user’s satisfaction" to PLOS ONE. We also value the time and energy you and the other reviewers invested in providing thoughtful feedback on how to strengthen our article. We are therefore delighted to resubmit our article for further consideration. We have made the required modifications in light of your extensive suggestions. We hope our edits and responses below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted.

To facilitate your review of our revisions, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments in a letter dated June 1, 2024

ACADEMIC EDITOR’S COMMENTS

First, thank you for your precious time, insightful comments, and suggestions for improving our paper.

1. Academic editor’s comment: Provide adequate justification for how the study areas are selected.

• Response: We value the time you took to fairly evaluate our methods section and point out any gaps. The study setting has been modified and the reason for selecting Addis Ababa city administration and East Shewa zone has been included in the document. The main reasons for selecting the study setting were, of course, the presence of functional youth-friendly health service corners in the health facilities and accessibility of the health facilities.

2. Academic editor’s comment: To make it more informative and ensure replicability, reorganize methods.

• Response: Thank you for suggesting a way to reorganize the methods section. We reorganized the methods as follows:

� Study design, setting, and period

� Study participants and selection procedure (inclusion/exclusion criteria are incorporated)

� Sample size and sampling techniques

� Data collection tools and procedures (the contents of the tool are described, the methods of data collection, data collectors and supervisors, and their qualifications are also included, the English version of the questionnaire is uploaded as supplementary material)

� Study variables (the measurement of the five domains of care-friendliness including equity, accessibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and effectiveness prepared in a separate document and uploaded as supplementary material (to manage the space in the methods part)).

� Data quality control

� Data processing and analysis

� Ethical consideration

3. Academic editor’s comment: Figures should be self-explanatory (add axis titles); describe all abbreviations used within tables as table footnotes

• Response: We have revised the title of our figures by adding the axis titles. Additionally, a description and a footnote are included for each abbreviation used within the tables

4. Academic editor’s comment: Discuss both the strengths and limitations of the study

• Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have made revisions in both parts.

5. Academic editor’s comment: Include the following items (a rebuttal letter, a marked-up copy of your manuscript, and an unmarked version of your revised paper) when submitting your revised manuscript

• Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have prepared all three documents as per the request and uploaded them as separate files

REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS:

We sincerely appreciate you taking the time to read our paper, giving us insightful feedback, and providing all useful comments.

6. Reviewer 1 comment: Unnecessary use of words like “we” in page 2 line 31-32. Revise it.

• Response: Thank you for your fair assessment. We have revised this part accordingly.

7. Reviewer 1 comment: What was the research gap regarding the intention of women to give birth at a health facility? If any put your strong justification in the final paragraph of the background.?????

• Response: Thank you for raising this question. We have modified the background section indicating the gap in evidence about our study. However, we believe that the intention of women to give birth at the facility does not directly align with our main research question.

8. Reviewer 1 comment: In the background part, you should describe YFS and YFS satisfaction briefly.

• Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have explained AYFHS and Satisfaction with AYFH services in the background section.

9. Reviewer 1 comment: The problem was not well stated in the introduction part. What was the problem of friendliness? What was the problem of satisfaction? Consequences of poor satisfaction?

• Response: Thank you for making a fair assessment of this section. In addition to explaining the AYFH services, satisfaction, and friendliness of services, we have indicated the existing gaps in friendliness, satisfaction, and the consequences of low satisfaction among adolescents and youths with AYFH services. In short, we have stated the problem in a separate paragraph under the background section.

10. Reviewer 1 comment: Describe the characteristics of the study population regarding youth-friendly services and health facility availability/accessibility, trained health care provider availability, and other important information in your study setting.

• Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have further modified the study setting, and now the study area's administrative layer, the overall population, the total adolescent population, and the accessibility of functional health facilities that provide services to youths and adolescents are all explained.

11. Reviewer 1 comment: I’m not satisfied with the selection criteria for selecting one health center from the east Shewa zone. Can we say it is representative of all other health facilities in the zone?

• Response: This is an interesting query. Modifications in the methods part particularly the study setting is made. We also believe that a single study site in East Shew cannot represent all the health facilities in the area. The rationale/reason for selecting the east Shewa zone of the Oromia region is explained.

12. Reviewer 1 comment: The study period must be specified. The specific date of commencement and final date of data collection was not specified. You said from August to October 2022. See page 6 line 100

• Response: Thank you for making a fair assessment of this part. The study was conducted from August 1 to October 28, 2022, and this is presented in the study period part of the paper.

13. Reviewer 1 comment: Measurement of accessibility, equity, acceptability, appropriateness, and effectiveness must be clearly mentioned

• Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The measurement of the five domains of care-friendliness including equity, accessibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and effectiveness prepared in a separate document and uploaded as supplementary material (to manage the space in the methods part).

14. Reviewer 1 comment: There was a problem of organizing your manuscript with the appropriate sequence. For example, sample size determination and sampling procedure must be organized before the data collection procedure. Revise it.

• Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Following your and the academic editor's suggestions, we reorganized the methods section (please see the complete response provided under the academic editor's comment 2 above.)

15. Reviewer 1 comment: You haven’t used supervisors? Why? What method was used to control data quality?

• Response: Thank you for raising this question. We have supervisors as members of the research team for the study. We have added a data quality control section under the methods part. The number, the qualifications, and the role of data collectors and supervisors are explained.

16. Reviewer 1 comment: Have you checked the multi-collinearity of independent variables? Have you checked model fitness?

• Response: You have raised an important question. We did not check this statistically/ using tests. However, we had to observe the variables to check whether there was such suspicion. None of the variables are suspected of that. In addition, the regression analysis supports our claim, by not resulting in estimates with wider CIs and or larger ORs. Regarding the model fitness, we have run the final model in Stata for HL and checked the model fitness.

17. Reviewer 1 comment: The recommendation must be specific and must address significant variables. But your recommendation was too general. See page 27 line 481-486.

• Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have changed the recommendation part as per the suggestion. We also believe that equity and appropriateness that were mentioned in the recommendation part are general and more specific characteristics under equity and appropriateness are identified and incorporated in the document

REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS:

18. Reviewer 2 general comments: The manuscript assessed friendliness and satisfaction level and their factors through a cross sectional study. Although quality and satisfaction of AYHS could be addressed under many qualitative and quantitative studies of “utilization of AYHS, the problem is still more contextual and may provide additional information to scientific and policy makers. But, the paper may benefit from revising the following comments.

• Response: Thank you very much for reading our work, contributing informative comments, and all of your other valuable feedback.

19. Reviewer 2 comments [Background]: Your justification “Even though 89 AFHS has been providing care in Ethiopia for nearly 20 years, there is a shortage of scientific research on the level of care that meets international standards” need to be more argued. Because there are many quantitative and qualitative why adolescents were not utilizing the AYFS, indirectly the issue of quality and satisfaction. What would this study makes a difference over those studies?

• Response: Thank you for making a fair assessment of this part. The existing literature focuses mainly on examining factors that affect AYFH services utilization and examining quality of care concentrating only on a particular aspect. Therefore, this study provides local, context-specific evidence about the degree of friendliness provided by adolescent and youth health services in Ethiopia by using the WHO Quality Assessment Guidebook

20. Reviewer 2 comments [Methods]: How 50% of adolescents are assumed to be satisfied where there are many studies exploring many challenges why adolescents were not using the service. Could it be fair to assume there is no study while there are many studies? And, dependent variables are two in this study, “friendliness” and “satisfaction level”. Did you have any other justification why you did calculate separate sample size and compare the two to select the larger sample size?

• Response: Thank you for raising this question: We believe that this could be a limitation of the study. However, during the proposal and data collection stage, we couldn't find similar studies done in similar settings. In addition, assuming 50% would give us a larger sample size at a 5% margin of error relative to other prevalence. So, the current sample size covers any prevalence at the 5% margin of error. Having separate sample sizes is not okay while we assume 50%, it is corrected in the manuscript.

21. Reviewer 2 comments [Methods]: You selected health facilities first, then systematically selected adolescents and the study is also facility-based, therefore, there could be a larger variance. Why you were not considering other sample size determination techniques like design effect to increase your sample?

• Response: Thank you for raising this question:

1. We selected the health facilities using the lottery method, assuming that they are homogeneous.

2. The sampling design is not that much complex.

3. Time feasibility, based on client flow it would take longer than required/feasible time to get larger samples/ than we considered.

4. Based on the rule of thumbs the sample size is more than enough to make an inference relative to the number of variables considered in the regression.

Considering all of the above we did not consider the design effect.

22. Reviewer 2 comments [Methods]: Could the study be generalizable? Because usually most awarded adolescents are usually come frequently and they could have adequate knowledge about the characteristics of your interest. But, majority may not! Don’t you think that this is your limitation of the study?

• Response: You have raised an important question. We agree with you, it can be one of the limitations of the study. It is already presented in the document as follows: The use of exit interviews as sources of client satisfaction has limitations in that they are conducted with a sample of clients who have already decided to visit a particular healthcare facility and are likely under the assumption that it will be at least satisfactory.

23. Reviewer 2 comments [Methods]: In your analysis, is it fair all the items in each construct could have reasonable factor loading despite easy to assume that they have reasonable reliability coefficients?

• Response: Thank you for raising this question. We have adopted the tool from the WHO and assumed that it is a validated tool and standard guide, which is why we did not check the factor loadings using CFA.

24. Reviewer 2 comments [Methods]: Many adolescents and youths aged less than 18 years utilize AYFH services without consulting their parents/guardians and asking for parental consent might cause emotional harm to adolescents and youths. Due to this, parents’ consent was not sought, and it was waived by the IRB of SPHMMC.” Could the IRB of SPHMMC waive anyone’s harm or benefit or autonomous? Parents should have been convinced or otherwise it could have been better excluded those under eight adolescents than justifying this way?

• Response: Thank you for raising this question: Ethics is always in support of benefits and waiving is also the mandate of the ethics committee for the benefit of the study participants. In this scenario, waiving the consent for the minors outweighs the risk of excluding youth/letting them know their parents. As the problem still exists and excluding minors will cost a huge information gap, waiving was considered as the best option, considering the risks and benefits of waiving the consent form.

25. Reviewer 2 comments [Results]: The subheading “Demographic and socio-economic background of study participants” could have been shortened.

• Response: Thank you for your suggestion. This is shorted as socio-demographic characteristics.

26. Reviewer 2 comments [Results]: In Table 5, how one could know how many variables were taken to the multivariable logistic regression, and which of those are not associated?

• Response: Thank you for this suggestion. This part is modified, the number of variables that had a statistical association in the bivariate analysis are presented in the document and the number of variables included in the multivariate logistic regression is also described.

Again, thank you for allowing us to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.

Sincerely,

Andamlak Gizaw Alamdo

Corresponding Author

Department of Health Service Management, Health Promotion, Reproductive Health, and Nutrition, School of Public Health, Saint Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

gizandal@gmail.com/andamlak.gizaw@sphmmc.edu.et

+251912038993

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0307142.s003.docx (28.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Dawit Wolde Daka

24 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-06588R1Youth-friendly health service in Ethiopia: Assessment of care friendliness and user’s satisfactionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alamdo,

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: Up on my own review of the revised manuscript, there are some issues that needs clarifications. Pay attention and adequately address the points indicated in the manuscript file.​

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 2024 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dawit Wolde Daka

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments were addressed adequately. this manuscript is suitable for publication in plos one journal fulfilling all criteria.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: Elias Amaje Hadona

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yitagesu Habtu

**********

[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: Manuscript_Commented.docx

pone.0307142.s004.docx (242.2KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 16;19(7):e0307142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307142.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


27 Jun 2024

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Date: June 27, 2024

Author’s response to reviews: Version _2

Title: Youth-friendly health service in Ethiopia: Assessment of care friendliness and user’s satisfaction

Academic editor’s comments

Many Thanks. We have learnt from your comments, and have tried our best to address them.

Academic editor’s comment [Abstract]: Is AOR be used to declare the presence of statistically significant associations? Rewrite this description.

• Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected it.

Academic editor’s comment [Methods]: Use the most updated/recent population size of the study areas. Currently, Addis Ababa’s population is more than 5 million.

• Response: We noticed the oversight and have corrected it. We have come in more recent data, and have updated the population size accordingly.

1. Academic editor’s comment [Methods]: The assumption of including this zone, over other zones/districts all over the country is no sufficiently justified. Strongly recommend to briefly put the explanations of including this district, and no other districts with the service (AYFHS).

• Response: We appreciate your point. The criteria considered when choosing the East Shewa zone for the study were briefly described again.

2. Academic editor’s comment [Methods]: Cite the literature reviewed.

• Response: Thank you. We have cited the references reviewed.

3. Academic editor’s comment [Methods]: Is this the questionnaire? Use correct labels while supplementary materials.

• Response: Yes, it’s the questionnaire. We have revised the label for supplementary material

4. Academic editor’s comment [Methods]: Merge this with the operational definitions section. You can name as: Study variables

• Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have merged the study variables and operational definition as ‘Study variables”

5. Academic editor’s comment [Methods]: OR is measure of strength of association, it is only p-value and 95% CI that is used to declare the presence of statistically significant associations. Correct descriptions accordingly

• Response: Thank you, we noticed the error. We revised it accordingly.

6. Academic editor’s comment [Methods]: Indicate the date as well under the ethical consideration sub-section.

• Response: Thank you. We have incorporated the date and revised a paragraph.

7. Academic editor’s comment [Results, Table 1]: The way age variable presented is not clearer, suggest using categories. It is a district, not Oromia. Correct accordingly. Are both outputs similar? Use mean with SD. Suggest categorizing age, and describe the mean results in narrations.

• Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised this part accordingly. We categorized the age, presented it in the table, and omitted the mean and median results already narrated in the report.

8. Academic editor’s comment [Results, Table 2-3]: Describe all acronyms/abbreviations used as table footnote. Try to concise variable names. See highlighted ones and correct. You can describe the details in narration.

• Response: Revised based on the suggestions. Variable names are revised and the mean and median results are deleted from the table.

9. Academic editor’s comment [Results, Table 5]: It would have been good if the reference group be reversed (Factors associated with adolescent and youth client satisfaction).

• Response: Thank you for raising this concern and we agree with you. It could have been better if the reference category had a larger frequency. However, during data analysis, we have considered other issues such as consistency with previous research, and interpretability (to have a meaningful comparison).

10. Academic editor’s comment [Results, Table 5]: What does this (‘1’) represent? Describe as table footnote. Describe all other abbreviations used in the table.

• Response: Thank you. "1’: indicates the reference and the baseline category for the binary and multivariable logistic regression analysis, respectively. All abbreviations/acronyms are described as footnotes.

1. Reviewer 1 Comments: All comments were addressed adequately. this manuscript is suitable for publication in PLoS One journal fulfilling all criteria.

• Response: Thank you. Your input has been very useful in enhancing the paper.

2. Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2: Overall comments

Response: Many thanks for your support in enhancing the quality of our paper.

Final comment:

Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

Response: Thank you. We have reviewed our reference list and revised it thoroughly according to the journal requirements.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0307142.s005.docx (22.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Dawit Wolde Daka

2 Jul 2024

Youth-friendly health service in Ethiopia: Assessment of care friendliness and user’s satisfaction

PONE-D-24-06588R2

Dear Dr. Alamdo,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Dawit Wolde Daka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Dawit Wolde Daka

8 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-06588R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alamdo,

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

Mr Dawit Wolde Daka

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. English version of the questionnaire.

    (PDF)

    pone.0307142.s001.pdf (135.7KB, pdf)
    S1 Table. Measurement/scoring sheet/ for the five domains of care friendliness.

    (PDF)

    pone.0307142.s002.pdf (76.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0307142.s003.docx (28.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Manuscript_Commented.docx

    pone.0307142.s004.docx (242.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0307142.s005.docx (22.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES