Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Aug 14;19(8):e0308814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308814

Community-based health insurance beneficiaries’ satisfaction on laboratory services and associated factors in selected public hospitals in Jimma Zone, Oromia Region, Southwest, Ethiopia

Nigusu Getachew 1,*, Mujahid Girma 2, Zewudineh Sahilemariam 2, Temesgen Kabeta 1, Amit Arora 3,4,5,6,7
Editor: Kiddus Yitbarek8
PMCID: PMC11324112  PMID: 39141624

Abstract

Background

The community-based health insurance (CBHI) scheme is a growing initiative aimed at enhancing healthcare access for the most impoverished members of the community. The Ethiopian CBHI scheme aims to enhance access to essential healthcare services, including medical laboratory services, for the poorest members of the community, but there is limited evidence on satisfaction levels. The aim of this study was to assess the satisfaction level of CBHI beneficiaries with laboratory services and their associated factors among selected public hospitals in Jimma Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia.

Methods

A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted on selected public hospitals in the Jimma Zone from September to October 2023. A total of 421 CBHI beneficiaries were enrolled in the study using a convenient sampling technique, and interviewers administered structured questionnaires to collect data. Data were entered into Epi-data and analyzed using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences version 25. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize independent variables; bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were done to test the association between independent and dependent variables; and statistical significance was declared at P<0.05.

Results

More than half (55.8%) of the 419 study participants were female. Above half, 57.5% of the respondents were satisfied by the clinical laboratory services at public hospitals in Jimma Zone. Components with a higher satisfaction rate were providers’ professional appearances (98.3%), procedures for specimen collection (87.6%), and availability of entertainment facilities at the waiting area (67.8%). On the contrary, longer waiting times to receive the test results (76.6%), inefficiency of the reception area (74.7%), and the inability of professionals to explain diagnostic procedures (58.0%) were associated with higher rates of dissatisfaction. Educational status and the number of hospital visits were found to have a statistically significant association with level of satisfaction with laboratory services.

Conclusions

CBHI beneficiaries’ satisfaction with laboratory service was at a moderate level in Jimma Zone public hospitals. Therefore, attention should be given to continuous monitoring of patients’ satisfaction with services, improving reception areas, and practicing routine explanations about the purposes and procedures during specimen collection to improve the beneficiaries’ satisfaction level with clinical laboratory services.

Background

Universal health coverage (UHC) has been a global health priority, aiming to ensure that all individuals have access to quality health services without facing financial hardship. It includes essential health services like health promotion, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative care. The World Health Organization(WHO) advocates for UHC worldwide, focusing on global health diffusion and progress tracking, but concerns have been raised about overemphasizing medical interventions and neglecting other essential aspects of healthcare delivery [13]. UHC in developing countries is challenging due to over-reliance on out-of-pocket spending (OOPS). Ethiopia’s OOPS share is 32.3%, exceeding the global target of 15–20% in low-income countries. To address this, Ethiopia is implementing community-based health insurance schemes [48].

Healthcare policymakers worldwide face challenges in financing healthcare systems. The WHO recommends a risk-pooling prepayment approach, a strategy where individuals contribute to a common fund that is used to cover healthcare costs for the entire group [912]. CBHI has emerged as an alternative to user fees, which can be a barrier to accessing necessary healthcare. CBHI is a voluntary health insurance scheme funded through a variety of sources, including central government contributions, private sector support, donor organizations, NGOs, and investment dividends [1315].

CBHI offers several potential benefits. Studies have shown that CBHI programs can increase healthcare access, especially for vulnerable populations [10]. Additionally, CBHI can reduce the financial burden on individuals and families and potentially improve health outcomes due to earlier treatment seeking behavior. However, CBHI faces challenges such as enrollment rates, payment capacity, and long-term financial sustainability [13, 1620].

CBHI schemes improve healthcare access in low- and middle-income countries by providing financial protection and reducing OOPS and social capital. These schemes encourage individuals to seek medical care, leading to earlier diagnosis and treatment. However, challenges persist in ensuring equitable access to healthcare services, especially among vulnerable populations. CBHI plays a crucial role in shaping healthcare utilization patterns and social capital, but barriers to implementation, uptake, and sustainability are critical factors affecting their effectiveness. A comprehensive review is needed to assess CBHI’s impact on health outcomes and UHC goals [9, 10, 11, 2125]. Client satisfaction refers to a person’s overall perception of a healthcare experience, and poor service provision can lead to financial losses and jeopardize the sustainability of the healthcare insurance industry [2628].

Client satisfaction with healthcare services under CBHI is significantly higher than without CBHI, largely due to beneficiary expectations. Studies across various developing countries, including Ethiopia, have identified Key predictors include wait time, staff friendliness, the consultation process, socio-demographic factors, the availability of diagnostics and drugs, and the facility environment. However, concerns about providers denying entitlements and charging additional fees raise questions about potential scams. Research on CBHI in low-income settings highlights increased hospitalization rates, but low enrollment threatens scheme sustainability. Globally, over 7.3 billion people lack access to essential health services, leading to poverty and high OOPS. Government investment is needed to improve drug availability and address worker complaints [22, 2940]. A pilot CBHI scheme, launched in 2011, has improved health outcomes and empowered women. However, challenges like provider readiness, drug shortages, moral hazards, equipment breakdowns, staff shortages, and complaint collection mechanisms hinder service quality [4144].

The quality of laboratory service is crucial for healthcare delivery, but a mismatch between client expectations and service can lead to dissatisfaction. Client satisfaction is often neglected during health insurance schemes, influenced by staff professionalism, information collection, waiting times, availability, cleanliness, room location, availability of essential resources like medications and laboratory services, and latrine accessibility [45, 46].

Client satisfaction is crucial for the CBHI program, as it increases beneficiary renewal rates and attracts new members. Surveys provide feedback on care quality, availability, and continuity, ensuring the program’s sustainability [47, 48]. Compared to the general population, CBHI members represent a specific group with distinct experiences within the healthcare system. They actively participate by contributing premiums and utilizing CBHI services. Understanding their satisfaction with specific aspects, like laboratory services, provides valuable insights for program improvement. According to our knowledge and access until the writing of this paper, there has been no research conducted directly on the issues in the study setting; therefore, this research explores the satisfaction of CBHI beneficiaries with laboratory services in selected public hospitals in Jimma Zone, Oromia Region, Southwest Ethiopia, aiming to improve the quality and effectiveness of CBHI programs.

Methods

Study design, setting, and period

A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Jimma Zone hospitals from September to October 2023. There are about 377,913 payer households of CBHI beneficiaries and about 67,616 indigents. There are 9 public hospitals, including Jimma University Medical Center, 3 primary private hospitals, 120 functional health centers, and 561 health posts in Jimma Zone. The study focused on six hospitals offering community-based health insurance (CBHI) services.

Population

The source and study population were all CBHI beneficiaries and CBHI beneficiaries who attended the selected hospitals for laboratory services during the study period, respectively.

Eligibility criteria

The study included CBHI beneficiaries who attended selected hospitals for laboratory services during the study period. Participants who are unable to hear or speak, and who did not utilize laboratory services during their hospital visit were excluded from the study.

Sample size determination and sampling procedure

The sample size for this study was determined using a single population formula, assuming a 95% confidence interval, a desired precision of 5%, and a 10% non-response rate. Based on a previous facility-based cross-sectional study conducted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [49], a 53% proportion of satisfaction with laboratory services among CBHI beneficiaries was anticipated. This resulted in a minimum sample size of 383, which was adjusted to 421 to account for the potential non-response rate. Simple random sampling with a lottery method was used to select fifty percent (50%) of the hospitals (three out of the six hospitals) in the Jimma Zone that offered CBHI services, as confirmed by the Jimma Zone CBHI coordinating office. A convenient sampling technique was used to select the study participants until our total sample size was acquired. The total number of CBHI beneficiaries was 88,449 in three randomly selected hospitals: Agaro, Seka Chokorsa, and Shenen Gibe. The sample size was proportionally allocated to each hospital based on its total number of enrolled CBHI beneficiaries.

Study variables

The dependent variable was the satisfaction level of CBHI beneficiaries, and the independent variables were socio-demographics, laboratory service provision-related determinants of CBHI beneficiaries’ satisfaction, and socio-economic characteristics of the CBHI beneficiaries like household wealth index, household family size, and occupation.

Operational definitions

Satisfaction level

Overall patients’ satisfaction level was calculated by taking the mean satisfaction score of all the 20 questions used to assess satisfaction level and classified into two categories as follows.

Dissatisfied

Patients whose score is below the mean satisfaction score of all the 20 questions used to assess satisfaction level.

Satisfied

Patients whose score is above the mean satisfaction score of all the 20 questions used to assess satisfaction level.

Data collection instrument

The data were collected using a face-to-face interview with CBHI beneficiaries by trained laboratory personnel with a pre-tested questionnaire. Data collectors were trained with the objective of standardizing the data collection instrument and providing them with the basic skill of extracting the data. The questionnaires were arranged after revising different related journals outside and inside the country, referring from global to local. In addition, study participants were asked to rate each aspect of their laboratory services on five-point scales (very dissatisfied, dissatisfied, neutral, satisfied, and very satisfied). A 5-point Likert scale rating of very dissatisfied (1 point), dissatisfied (2 points), neutral (3 points), satisfied (4 points), and very satisfied (5 points) was used. To calculate the level of patient satisfaction with different laboratory services, mean satisfaction was calculated, and respondents whose total score was mean or above were classified as satisfied, while those scoring below the mean score were categorized as dissatisfied. The overall rate of satisfaction by Likert scales was calculated as (number of very satisfied rating ×5) + (number of satisfied rating ×4) + (number of neutral rating ×3) + (number of dissatisfied rating ×2) + (number of very dissatisfied rating ×1) divided by the total number of ratings (1–5) for the general laboratory services. The internal consistency of the items was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, with items with a Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.6 being included in the final analysis. Satisfaction with the facility has seven items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.62), satisfaction with laboratory professionals service provision and ethical characteristics has six items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.69) and satisfaction with the availability of tests and service-related issues has seven items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.62).

Data processing and analysis

The completed questionnaires were coded and entered into EPI-DATA for data cleaning and then transferred to SPSS version 25 for further analysis. The goodness of fit was checked with the Hosmer–Lemeshow test (p = 0.35). Multicollinearity was checked by examining the variance inflation factor. Descriptive statistics were performed to summarize the data, with results presented as percentages for categorical variables and means with standard deviations for continuous variables. To identify factors associated with satisfaction with laboratory services, bivariate logistic regression analyses were initially conducted. Variables with a p-value less than 0.25 in the bivariate analysis were then included in a multivariable logistic regression model to control for potential confounding factors. The study used odds ratios (OR) to assess the strength and direction of the association between independent and dependent variables. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The results of the analyses were presented using text, tables, and charts for clarity.

Ethical consideration

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Jimma University Institute of Health, permission from the zonal health department, and written informed consent from all participants by discussing the aim and potential benefits of the study.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

A study of 421CBHI beneficiaries found a response rate of 99.3% (419 respondents), with the average age was 38.69 ± 6.02 years, 55.8% females, 63.2%) rural dwellers, and 58.2% having a wealth of $200 USD (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents on patient satisfaction with clinical laboratory services received at public hospitals in Jimma zone, Oromia region, Southwest Ethiopia, 2023, (N = 419).

Variables Category Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender Male 185 44.2
Female 234 55.8
Age 18–24 years 49 11.7
25–34 years 148 35.3
35–44 years 105 25.1
45–54 years 98 23.4
55 and above years 19 4.5
Residence Urban 154 36.8
Rural 265 63.2
House-hold wealth index monthly income 100USD 88 21.0
200USD 244 58.2
300USD 57 13.6
400USD 30 7.2
Educational status Illiterate 58 13.8
Read and write 164 39.1
Primary 128 30.5
Secondary 36 8.6
Diploma and above 33 7.9
Language Afan Oromo 287 68.5
Amharic 107 25.5
other languages 25 6.0
Marital status Single 88 21.0
Married 282 67.3
Divorced/widowed 49 11.7
Number of hospital visits One visits 85 20.3
Two visits 99 23.6
More than two visits 235 56.1
Household family size 1–5 177 42.2
6–10 104 24.8
11–14 80 19.1
>15 58 13.8
Occupation Farmer 118 28.2
Merchant 126 30.1
Daily laborer 86 20.5
Others 89 21.2

Satisfaction towards the facility

The majority of respondents (74.7%) were dissatisfied with the lack of a sufficient reception area, while 67.8% were satisfied with entertainment facilities, sitting arrangements, and client restroom cleanliness. However, over half of study participants (54.9%) expressed dissatisfaction with the laboratory service’s distance from their residential area (Table 2).

Table 2. Satisfaction level of the study participants towards facility related variables at public hospitals in Jimma zone, Oromia region, Southwest Ethiopia, 2023, (N = 419).

S. no Variables Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Mean
N (%) N (%) N (%)
1 Availability of sufficient reception area 313(74.7) 52(12.4) 54(12.9) 2.19
2 Availability of entertaining materials at the lab result waiting area 82(19.6) 53(12.6) 284(67.8) 3.92
3 Availability of benches or chairs sitting arrangements in waiting area 140(33.5) 18(4.3) 261(62.3) 3.51
4 Comfortable with the laboratory setup or organizational structure 92(22.0) 197(47) 130(31.0) 3.12
5 Cleanliness of the laboratory rooms 151(36.1) 43(10.3) 225(53.7) 3.28
6 Cleanness and comfort of the latrine 122(29.1) 42(10) 254(60.6) 3.50
7 Distance from residential area to nearby health care facility 230(54.9) 92(22) 63(23.2) 3.37

Satisfaction towards laboratory professionals service provision and ethical characteristics

Most participants were satisfied with service providers’ friendly welcome, specimen collection procedures, and professional appearances, but 58.0% were dissatisfied with their explanations during sample collection (Table 3).

Table 3. Satisfaction level of the respondents towards lab professionals attitude and behaviour at public hospitals in Jimma zone, Oromia region, Southwest Ethiopia, 2023, (N = 419).

S. no Variables Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Mean
N (%) N (%) N (%)
1 Services providers friendly how they well come you 53(12.6) 15(3.6) 351(83.8) 4.39
2 Procedures for blood and other body fluid specimen collection 51(12.2) 1(0.2) 367(87.6) 4.54
3 Maintenance of patients’ privacy and confidentiality in laboratory rooms 90(21.4) 22(5.3) 307(73.3) 3.92
4 The ability of service provider explanation about diagnostic test during sample collection 222(58.0) 80(19.1) 119(27.9) 2.72
5 Availability of laboratory staff on working hours 51(12.2) 62(14.8) 306(73.0) 3.96
6 Laboratory personnel’s professional appearances (neatness, professional dressing) 4(01.0) 3(0.7) 412(98.3) 4.45

Satisfaction towards availability of tests and service-related issues

The study found that 70% of participants were satisfied with laboratory test availability, information provision, and service continuity, but higher dissatisfaction rates were observed in the availability of requested tests, CBHI user ID card receiving time, and waiting time (Table 4).

Table 4. Satisfaction towards availability of tests and service-related issues at public hospitals in Jimma zone, Oromia region, Southwest Ethiopia, 2023, (N = 419).

S.no Variables Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Mean
N (%) N (%) N (%)
1 The availability of the requested laboratory tests 241 (57.5) 80(19.1) 98(23.4) 2.68
2 Availability of proper and clear direction of each lab rooms/sections 231(55.1) 33(7.9) 155(37.0) 2.98
3 Status of happiness with laboratory opening time 85(20.3) 28(6.7) 306(70.0) 3.96
4 Availability of sufficient information provision 118(28.1) 37(8.8) 264(63.1) 3.75
5 Duration of waiting time for lab test result collection 321(76.6) 31(7.4) 67(16.0) 2.24
6 Duration of CBHI users ID receiving time 255(60.9) 35(8.4) 129(30.8) 2.56
7 Laboratory service continuity 122(15.8) 42(10) 255(60.9) 3.47

Overall satisfaction level of CBHI beneficiaries

The mean satisfaction level among beneficiaries of CBHI in clinical laboratory services was 3.43±0.6. The Likert scale rating indicated that a majority of respondents (57.5%) were satisfied with the clinical laboratory services provided by selected hospitals (See Fig 1).

Fig 1. Overall satisfaction level of the respondents on patients satisfaction with clinical laboratory services received at public hospitals in Jimma Zone, Oromia Region, Southwest Ethiopia, 2023, (N = 419).

Fig 1

Factors associated with satisfaction level of beneficiaries

Six socio-demographic characteristics were analyzed using multiple logistic regressions, with only two showing a significant association with dissatisfaction. High school, illiterate, primary education, and reading and writing patients had a higher likelihood of dissatisfaction compared to those with a diploma and above. Patients who visited the hospital more than two times also had a higher likelihood of dissatisfaction (Table 5).

Table 5. Multivariate analysis showing factors associated with satisfaction level of the respondents on patient satisfaction with clinical laboratory services received at public hospitals in Jimma zone, Oromia region, Southwest Ethiopia, 2023, (N = 419).

Variables Category Satisfaction level COR AOR 95% CI for AOR P-value
Satisfied Dissatisfied Lower bound higher bound
Households wealth index 100USD 52(12.4) 36(8.6) 1.9 1.8 0.7 4.9 0.22
200USD 135(32.2) 109(26) 2.2 2.1 0.8 5.2 0.11
300USD 32(7.6) 25(6) 2.1 2.1 0.7 6.0 0.17
400USD 22(5.3) 8(1.9) 1 1
Occupation Farmer 76(18.1) 42(10) 1 1
Merchant 81(19.3) 45(10.7) 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.4 0.36
daily laborer 41(9.8) 45(10.7) 1.03 1.05 0.6 2.0 0.88
Others 43(10.3) 46(11) 2.0 1.7 1.0 3.1 0.16
Educational status Illiterate 21(6.4) 31(7.4) 8.3 6.8 2.0 23.6 .002*
Read and write 98(23.4) 66(15.5) 4.9 4.0 1.3 13.0 .019*
Primary 71(16.9) 57(13.6) 5.8 4.6 1.4 15.0 .012*
Secondary 16(3.8) 20(4.8) 9.1 7.8 2.1 28.6 .002*
College + 29(6.9) 4(1) 1 1
Language Afan Oromo 171(40.8) 116(27.7) 1 1
Amharic 55(13.1) 52(12.4) 1.4 1.3 0.8 2.2 0.24
Others 15(3.6) 10(2.4) 0.98 0.9 0.4 2.4 0.90
Number of hospital visits One visits 56(13.4) 29(6.9) 1
Two visits 65(15.5) 34(8.1) 1.01 0.9 0.5 1.9 0.86
Above two visits 120(28.6) 115(27.4) 1.9 1.7 0.98 3.1 0.049
Household family size 1–5 99(23.6) 78(18.6) 1 1
6–10 67(16) 37(8.8) 0.7 0.7 0.4 1.2 0.20
11–15 38(9.1) 42(10) 1.4 1.4 0.8 2.5 0.20
>15 37(8.8) 21(5) 0.7 0.8 0.4 1.5 0.48

Key; *statically significant, (p < 0.05), COR, crude odds ratio, AOR adjusted odds ratio, 1 reference category, Max, VIF = 1.06(no multicollinearity: at VIF < 5). The overall p-value for number of hospital visits and educational status is <0.05

Discussion

This study investigated patient satisfaction with clinical laboratory services among CBHI beneficiaries in public hospitals in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. Here, we discuss the key findings, their alignment with existing literature, and potential explanations for observed patterns. Currently, establishing community-based health insurance has been getting high attention, especially in resource-limited countries like Ethiopia, to improve health care utilization and ensure financial protection for households to mitigate poverty [17].

The overall satisfaction level in our study (57.5%) aligns with some previous research in Ethiopia (52.6–60.4%) [4954]. However, it falls short of findings from other studies reporting satisfaction as high as 90.8% [55, 56]. These variations might stem from differences in patient loads, healthcare infrastructure, and CBHI beneficiary sizes, which can vary across locations. Differences in demographics, expectations, and prior experiences can influence satisfaction levels. Variations in sample size, sampling techniques, and study design can affect results.

This study found a lower satisfaction level compared to a systematic review conducted in Ethiopia, which reported a pooled satisfaction level of 66.0% [57]. This discrepancy might be due to several factors, including differences in sample size, sampling procedures, and the inherent nature of a systematic review, which analyzes data from multiple studies across regions.

The mean satisfaction score of community-based health insurance beneficiaries with clinical laboratory services was 3.43 ± 0.60, ranging from 2.19 to 4.54. This score aligns with findings from other studies conducted in eastern Ethiopia [55]. However, our results were higher compared to another study conducted in Addis Ababa [49]. This variation might be attributed to differences in patient load, lifestyle factors, the condition of healthcare facilities, and service delivery standards between the two study populations.

Beneficiaries expressed positive perceptions regarding staff availability (3.96), professional appearance (4.45), lab opening hours (3.96), and blood sample collection procedures (4.54). This aligns with other studies [55, 58].

A study in Addis Ababa similarly found the lowest satisfaction scores for laboratory professionals’ explanation of tests [49]. In contrast, a Northeast Ethiopian study reported a mean satisfaction score of 3.8 out of 5 for clinicians using laboratory services, with praise for staff availability and turnaround time.

Beneficiaries reported dissatisfaction with waiting times for test results (2.24), similar to findings in eastern Ethiopia [59]. Explanations of test procedures by staff received low satisfaction scores (2.72), echoing concerns raised in prior research [49, 51].

The study identified educational status and the number of hospital visits as significantly associated with satisfaction levels. People with lower education levels are more likely to be dissatisfied with the service compared to those with college degrees. People who visit the hospital more than twice are more likely to be dissatisfied compared to those who visit only once. This aligns with previous studies in Ethiopia [49, 52]. However, factors like age, sex, and residence did not show significant associations, similar to findings from Addis Ababa [49].

Limitation of the study

The study evaluated patient satisfaction with clinical laboratory services in community-based health insurance, excluding other services. Hospital-based interviews may result in social desirability bias, as patients may favor healthcare providers. This study employed a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to establish causal relationships between factors and patient satisfaction. Since data collection occurred at a single point in time, we cannot determine if factors identified through the study caused variations in satisfaction levels. A convenient sampling technique was used to select study participants within the chosen hospitals. While this method allowed for efficient data collection, it might introduce selection bias as participants who were readily available may not be fully representative of the entire CBHI beneficiary population that utilizes laboratory services within these hospitals. The study focused on CBHI beneficiaries in public hospitals located within the Jimma Zone of Ethiopia. This specific geographic focus may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations or healthcare settings.

Conclusion

The overall satisfaction level of CBHI beneficiaries with clinical laboratory services at selected public hospitals in Jimma Zone was moderate. While beneficiaries appreciated the professionalism of laboratory personnel and specimen collection procedures, dissatisfaction arose due to limited reception space and extended waiting times for results. Notably, educational background and frequency of hospital visits influenced satisfaction levels. Expanding reception areas can alleviate overcrowding and create a more comfortable waiting environment. Additionally, optimizing workflows can reduce wait times for test results, improving overall efficiency. Implementing routine explanations of test purposes and procedures during specimen collection, regardless of patient education level, can foster a sense of trust and informed participation in their healthcare journey.

Supporting information

S1 File. Survey questions in the English and sampling procedure.

(DOCX)

pone.0308814.s001.docx (33.3KB, docx)
S1 Dataset

(DTA)

pone.0308814.s002.dta (179.5KB, dta)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the study participants, data collectors and those who had contribution to this study.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. (2017). Global diffusion of eHealth: Making universal health coverage achievable: Report of the third global survey on eHealth. Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN: 9241511788
  • 2.World Health Organization. (2015). Tracking universal health coverage: First global monitoring report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
  • 3.Clark J. (2014). Medicalization of global health 1: Has the global health agenda become too medicalized? Global Health Action, 7(1), 23998. doi: 10.3402/gha.v7.23998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.World Health Organization. (2010). The world health report: Health systems financing: The path to universal coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/44371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 5.Ethiopian Health Insurance Agency. (May 2015). Evaluation of Community-Based Health Insurance Pilot Schemes in Ethiopia: Final Report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
  • 6.Ministry of Health. (2022). Ethiopia National Health Accounts Report 2019/20. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Health Partnership and Cooperation Directora.
  • 7.Gilson L. (1997). The lessons of user fee experience in Africa. Health Policy and Planning, 12(3), 273–285. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.heapol.a018882 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Beattie A, Doherty J, Gilson L, Lambo. (1996). Sustainable health care financing in Southern Africa: Papers from an EDI Health Policy Seminar held in Johannesburg, South Africa, June 1996. EDI Learning Resources Series. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Institute (WBI), World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/608111468758973303/Sustainable-health-care-financing-in-Southern-Africa-papers-from-an-EDI-Health-Policy-Seminar-held-in-Johannesburg-South-Africa-June-1996
  • 9.Fadlallah R, El-Jardali F, Hemadi N, et al. (2018). Barriers and facilitators to implementation, uptake, and sustainability of community-based health insurance schemes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. International Journal for Equity in Health, 17(1), 13. doi: 10.1186/s12939-018-0721-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Eze P, Ilechukwu S, Lawani LO. (2023). Impact of community-based health insurance in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 18(6), e0287600. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287600 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Preker AS, Carrin G. (2004). Health financing for poor people: Resource mobilization and risk sharing. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications.
  • 12.World Health Organization. (2000). The world health report 2000: Health systems: Improving performance. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
  • 13.World Health Organization. (2018). The world health report: Health systems financing: The path to universal coverage. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Contract No.: 92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 14.World Health Organization. (2006). The world health report 2006: Working together for health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. ISBN: 9241563176.
  • 15.Carrin G. (2003). Community-based health insurance schemes in developing countries: Facts, problems, and perspectives. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81(8), 579–580 [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Peters DH, El-Saharty S, Siadat B, et al. (2009). Improving health service delivery in developing countries: From evidence to action. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
  • 17.Umeh CA, Feeleya FG. (2017). Inequitable access to health care by the poor in community-based health insurance programs: A review of studies from low- and middle-income countries. Global Health: Science and Practice, 5(2). doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00286 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Carrin G, Waelkens MP, Criel B. (2005). Community-based health insurance in developing countries: A study of its contribution to the performance of health financing systems. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 10(8), 799–811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nnamuchi O. (2009). The Nigerian social health insurance system and the challenges of access to health care: An antidote or a white elephant. Medicine & Law, 28, 125. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Abel-Smith B. (1992). Health insurance in developing countries: Lessons from experience. Health Policy and Planning, 7(3), 215–226. doi: 10.1093/heapol/7.3.215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Arhin-Tenkorang D. (2001). Health insurance for the informal sector in Africa: Design features, risk protection, and resource mobilization. Health, Nutrition, and Population Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
  • 22.Kaseje DC, Spencer HC, Sempebwa EK. (1987). Usage of community-based chloroquine treatment for malaria in Saradidi, Kenya. Annals of Tropical Medicine & Parasitology, 81(Suppl 1), 111–115. doi: 10.1080/00034983.1987.11812196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Getahun GK, Kinfe K, Minwuyelet Z. (2023). The role of community-based health insurance on healthcare seeking behavior of households in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Preventive Medicine Reports, 34, 102234. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102234 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Donfouet HP, Mahieu PA. (2012). Community-based health insurance and social capital: A review. Health Economics Review, 2, 5. doi: 10.1186/2191-1991-2-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Preker AS, Langenbrunner J, Jakab M. (2002). Rich-poor differences in health care financing. In: Social Reinsurance (pp. 3–51).
  • 26.Gauteng Provincial Department of Health. (2008). Guide to Measuring Client Satisfaction: Updated by Health Systems Trust. Pretoria, South Africa: P.A.H.S.A. Department of Health.
  • 27.Ware JE, et al. (1983). Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Evaluation and Program Planning, 6(3–4), 247–263. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(83)90005-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Husband VP. (2020). Antecedents to Customer Satisfaction for US Health Insurance Customers. Dissertation, Walden University.
  • 29.Mebratie A. (2015). Essays on evaluating a community-based health insurance scheme in rural Ethiopia [Ph.D. thesis]. International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University (ISS).
  • 30.Portable Antiquities Scheme. (2006). Portable Antiquities Scheme: Annual Report 2005/6. Portable Antiquities Scheme.
  • 31.Belete T., Meless H., Kassu A., et al. (2004). Laboratory services in hospitals and regional laboratories in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Journal of Health Development, 18(1), 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kassu A., & Aseffa A. (1999). Laboratory services in health centres within Amhara region, north Ethiopia. East African Medical Journal, 76(5), 1–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.World Health Organization. (2007). Strengthening health systems to improve health outcomes: WHO’s framework for action. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
  • 34.Sarker AR, et al. (2018). Clients’ experience and satisfaction of utilizing healthcare services in a community-based health insurance program in Bangladesh. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(8), 1637. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15081637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fufa G, et al. (2021). Assessing factors associated with poor community-based health insurance client satisfaction level with public health care services in Negele Arsi Woreda Health Centers, West Arsi Zone Ethiopia. Health Science Journal, 15(5), 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Badacho AS, et al. (2016). Household satisfaction with a community-based health insurance scheme in Ethiopia. BMC Research Notes, 9, 424 doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-2226-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kebede KM, Geberetsadik SM. (2019). Household satisfaction with community-based health insurance scheme and associated factors in piloted Sheko district; Southwest Ethiopia. PLOS ONE, 14(5), e0216414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Addise T, et al. (2021). The magnitude of satisfaction and associated factors among household heads who visited health facilities with community-based health insurance scheme in Anilemo District, Hadiya Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, Volume, 145–154. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S290671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Fenny AP, et al. (2014). Patient satisfaction with primary health care–a comparison between the insured and non-insured under the National Health Insurance Policy in Ghana. Global Journal of Health Science, 6(4), 9–21. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v6n4p9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Uwingabire B., & Mureithi C. (2020). Perceptions and satisfaction towards community-based health insurance (CBHI) among patients seeking care in Kigeme Hospital, Nyamagabe District, Rwanda. Global Scientific Journal, 8(10). [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Badacho AS, Tushune K, Ejigu Y, et al. (2016) Household satisfaction with a community-based health insurance scheme in Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 9:424. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-2226-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mebratie AD, Sparrow R, Yilma Z, et al. (2015) Enrollment in Ethiopia’s community-based health insurance scheme. World Dev. 74:58–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Feleke, S., Mitiku, W., Zelelew, H., et al. (2015). Ethiopia’s community-based health insurance: A step on the road to universal health coverage. Health Finance and Governance.
  • 44.USAID. (2015). Evaluation of community-based health insurance pilot schemes in Ethiopia. USAID/HSFR/HFG.
  • 45.Agha S, Karim AM, Balal A, et al. (2007) The impact of a reproductive health franchise on client satisfaction in rural Nepal. Health Policy Plan. 22(5):320–8 doi: 10.1093/heapol/czm025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Haile M, et al. (2023) Clients’ knowledge and satisfaction with utilizing healthcare services in community-based health insurance program and its associated factors among public health centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Health Econ Outcome Res. 9(4):001–008 [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Fenny AP, et al. (2014) Patient satisfaction with primary health care–a comparison between the insured and non-insured under the National Health Insurance Policy in Ghana. Glob J Health Sci. 6(4):9. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v6n4p9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Aldebasi Y, Ahmed MI. (2011) Patients’ satisfaction with medical services in the Qassim Area. J Clin Diagn Res. 5(4):813–817. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gashaw D. (2020) Level of household satisfaction in community-based health insurance beneficiaries on medical laboratory services and its associated factors in selected health centers. Food Sci Qual Manag. 98:29–35. doi: 10.7176/FSQM/98-04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tadele G, Ejeta E, Desalegn M, et al. (2014) Patients’ satisfaction with clinical laboratory services at Nekemte Referral Hospital, Oromia, Ethiopia. Food Sci Qual Manag. 30:25–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Abera RG, Abota BA, Legese MH, et al. (2017). Patient satisfaction with clinical laboratory services at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Patient Preference and Adherence, 11, 1181–1188. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S132397 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Alelign A, Belay YA. (2019). Patient satisfaction with clinical laboratory services and associated factors among adult patients attending outpatient departments at Debre Markos Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Research Notes, 12(1), 1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bogale AL, Kassa HB, Ali JH. (2015). Patients’ perception and satisfaction with the quality of laboratory malaria diagnostic services in Amhara Regional State, Northwest Ethiopia. Malaria Journal, 14, 241. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-0756-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Tewodros A, Tefera Y, Dilebo A. (2020). Household satisfaction and associated factors with community-based health insurance scheme in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Health Research and Policy, 4, 14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Teklemariam Z, Mekonnen A, Kedir H, et al. (2013). Clients and clinician satisfaction with laboratory services at selected government hospitals in Eastern Ethiopia. BMC Research Notes, 6, 1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Negash B, Dessie Y, Gobena T. (2019). Community-based health insurance utilization and associated factors among informal workers in Gida Ayana District, Oromia Region, West Ethiopia. East African Journal of Health and Biomedical Sciences, 3(2), 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Tefera DT, Molla MK. (2023). Beneficiaries’ satisfaction with community-based health insurance services and associated factors in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Health Research and Policy, 7, 32. doi: 10.1186/s41256-023-00325-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Abebe M, Kassaye MD, Gebremariam AT, Amare B, Deressa W. (2023). Clinicians’ satisfaction with laboratory services and associated factors at public health facilities in Northeast Ethiopia. BMC Health Services Research, 23(1), 475. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09429-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Woldemichael KM, Gebre-Selasie S, Abdissa A. (2013). Clients and clinician satisfaction with laboratory services at selected government hospitals in eastern Ethiopia. BMC Research Notes, 6, 15. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kiddus Yitbarek

28 May 2024

PONE-D-24-14840Community-Based Health Insurance Beneficiaries satisfaction on Laboratory Services and Associated Factors in Selected Public Hospitals in Jimma Zone, Oromia Region, Southwest EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Endashaw,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 12 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.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kiddus Yitbarek, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“Funding: This work was supported by Jimma University”

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

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

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

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

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

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

4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

5. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file [CBHI spss.sav]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your interesting research on healthcare delivery in Ethiopia, focusing on the perspective of health insurance policyholders regarding laboratory services. Your study highlights a previously overlooked aspect, and we appreciate the contribution.

However, there are points that require further elaboration to strengthen the research:

1. Rationale:

You rightly point out the importance of client satisfaction for healthcare system acceptance. In your study design, you focused on a specific group, CBHI members. Could you elaborate on the rationale for selecting this specific population in the background section?

2. Measurement Reliability:

Another crucial aspect is the reliability of the satisfaction measurement instruments. Would you be able to report on the reliability of the specific items used to assess satisfaction?

3. Satisfaction Measurement Method:

You've described how satisfaction was measured using a five-point Likert scale and the construction of the composite measure. Could you compare your chosen method (mean scores) for determining a satisfaction/dissatisfaction reference point with other commonly used methods?

4. Measurement of Other Variables:

The methods section doesn't detail how other variables, such as the wealth index, were measured. Could you elaborate on the specific procedures used to measure wealth and any other relevant variables in your study?

5. Reference Category in Regression Model:

Your regression model utilizes "Others" as the reference category. This might not convey the most informative message. Could you consider revising this aspect of the model?

The reviewers have raised valuable points that can significantly enhance your research quality. We encourage you to address each comment point-by-point in your revised manuscript and provide explanations for the feedback received

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This study provides valuable insights into the satisfaction levels of Community-Based Health Insurance beneficiaries regarding laboratory services in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. The authors have conducted a comprehensive assessment, utilizing a facility-based cross-sectional design and employing rigorous statistical analyses to explore various factors associated with satisfaction. The findings shed light on both areas of strength and areas for improvement within the healthcare system, particularly in public hospitals.

However, to improve the output, I have listed my comments and suggestions.

General recommendations:

• Line numbers are recommended for the reviewer to detect and label feedback.

• Spacing and indentation need attention (e.g., Introduction paragraph 4; Client …..).

• English grammar should be carefully checked.

Title: Cases should be appropriately oriented. Updated title “Community-Based Health Insurance Beneficiaries Satisfaction on Laboratory Services and Associated Factors in Selected Public Hospitals in Jimma Zone, Oromia Region, Southwest, Ethiopia”

Abstract:

• Words in the first text should be written in full. For example, "SPSS" should be written as "Statistical Package of Social Sciences version 25."

• It is recommended to include the distribution of participants' ages in the summary.

Introduction:

• Authors should consistently emphasize abbreviations throughout the paper, such as WHO, OOPS, NGOs, LMICs, CBHI. Some abbreviations are repeatedly used with the full term while others are not. Please ensure consistency in their usage throughout the paper.

• Caution and revision are needed in citations. It's not recommended to include a bunch of references per paragraph. For example, in the second paragraph, 16 articles were cited at once (9-24), which could be overly vague. Instead, it's recommended to cite specific articles at each instance.

Methodology

• In the Study Design section, it is recommended to include the statement "Fifty percent (50%) of the hospitals were randomly selected for community-based health insurance. That means about three of them (50%) were selected randomly by the lottery method." under the sample size determination.

• The Population section should be separated from the concept of eligibility criteria and placed in its own section. For example: "The study included CBHI beneficiaries who attended selected hospitals for laboratory services during the study period, while those who were unable to hear or speak were excluded." Additionally, clarification is needed regarding the rationale for excluding individuals unable to hear or speak, particularly since they were already at the healthcare facility. Was their exclusion due to severe illness affecting consent or other justifications?

• In the Abstract section, mention of bivariate and multivariable analysis should also be included in the main section for consistency.

• While not mandatory, I personally recommend additional analysis to evaluate the goodness of model fit using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, along with reporting the associated p-value. Additionally, it would be beneficial to assess multicollinearity using variance inflation factors (VIFs)."

Result

• How was the household wealth index scaled in your study?

Discussion

I would like to address the beginning of the Discussion section, which I found lacking in clarity and engagement. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The authors should interpret their findings in the context of existing literature, acknowledge limitations, and provide insights for future research and practical implications.

• Begin by summarizing the key findings of the study, highlighting both areas of strength and areas for improvement in CBHI beneficiaries' satisfaction with laboratory services. Discuss how these findings align with or diverge from previous research on patient satisfaction in healthcare settings.

• Provide a comprehensive review of relevant literature on patient satisfaction, particularly in the context of CBHI schemes or similar healthcare initiatives in Ethiopia or other comparable settings. Compare the findings of the current study with previous research, noting similarities, differences, and potential explanations for discrepancies.

• Offer explanations for the observed patterns in satisfaction levels and associated factors identified in the study. Consider factors such as socio-demographic characteristics of beneficiaries, healthcare system infrastructure, and quality of service delivery in public hospitals. Discuss how these factors may influence patients' perceptions of laboratory services.

Limitation

• What about as the cross-sectional design, potential biases introduced by the sampling method, and limitations in generalizability due to the study's focus on a specific geographic area?

References

• It is better to minimize the number of references.

Reviewer #2: This paper has explored CBHI user's satisfaction regarding laboratory services in Jimma zone.

In background

Make sure to introduce all abbreviations in the text before using them (for example "OOPS"). Additionally, once you’ve introduced the abbreviation you can just use it in the remainder of the text ( for example CBHI)

Have you exhausted all possible confounders? (disease severity..)

In method:

• Clarify the sampling frame and the sampling method; "focusing on six hospitals: eight governmental, two private and 120 health centers. Fifty percent (50%) of the hospitals were randomly selected for community-based health insurance." This part is a bit confusing on the study population section.

• Any justifications as to why those with visual and auditory impairment/difficulties were excluded?

• Was there any other inclusion or exclusion criterion that was used?

• On table 5 of the results: try to use uniform reference categories (either first or last)

On the discussion

• Consider adding the interpretations of the odds ratios to further elaborate the findings.

• Can we compare studies viewing overall satisfaction with one viewing just laboratory service related?

General concern regarding the interview tool since it's not an internationally validated tool, could you do a validity check (internal consistency..) ?

Overall review the structure of the paragraphs in terms of global, regional and local data as well as in terms of associated factors, refine the grammar and consider getting it proof read.

**********

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: Eyob Girma Abera

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

PLoS One. 2024 Aug 14;19(8):e0308814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308814.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Jun 2024

Point-by-point response to review questions

Dear Editor,

Thank you for facilitating the review of our manuscript and the reviewers for their invaluable comments. After careful review of all the invaluable comments raised by the editor and reviewers, we have prepared a point-by-point response and also revised the manuscript accordingly.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your interesting research on healthcare delivery in Ethiopia, focusing on the perspective of health insurance policyholders regarding laboratory services. Your study highlights a previously overlooked aspect, and we appreciate the contribution.

However, there are points that require further elaboration to strengthen the research:

1. Rationale:

You rightly point out the importance of client satisfaction for healthcare system acceptance. In your study design, you focused on a specific group, CBHI members. Could you elaborate on the rationale for selecting this specific population in the background section?

Response: thank you very much for this important concern. I have corrected it in the revised copy of the article.

2. Measurement Reliability:

Another crucial aspect is the reliability of the satisfaction measurement instruments. Would you be able to report on the reliability of the specific items used to assess satisfaction?

Response: thank you very much for your insight. I have corrected it in the revised copy of the article.

3. Satisfaction Measurement Method:

You've described how satisfaction was measured using a five-point Likert scale and the construction of the composite measure. Could you compare your chosen method (mean scores) for determining a satisfaction/dissatisfaction reference point with other commonly used methods?

Response: thank you very much for this important concern. The study described uses the mean score on a Likert scale to determine a satisfaction/dissatisfaction reference point. This is a common method, but it has some limitations. Here's a comparison with other commonly used methods: 1. Mean Score:

Strengths: Easy to calculate, readily interpretable.

Weaknesses: Doesn't account for the distribution of responses. A high mean score could be due to everyone being slightly satisfied, or a few very satisfied people dragging the average up.

Good for: Getting a general sense of satisfaction, especially if the data is normally distributed.

2. Median Score:

Strengths: Less sensitive to outliers than the mean, reflects the "middle ground" of responses.

Weaknesses: Doesn't use all the data available, less intuitive than the mean for some audiences.

Good for: When there might be extreme scores that skew the data set.

3. Percentage:

Strengths: Shows the distribution of responses, provides a more detailed picture of satisfaction levels.

Weaknesses: Can be overwhelming with many categories, less easy to summarize in a single number.

Good for: When a detailed breakdown of satisfaction levels is needed across different categories.

The mean score is a common and easy-to-understand method but based on the specific research question and data we have the option to see other method.

4. Measurement of Other Variables:

The methods section doesn't detail how other variables, such as the wealth index, were measured. Could you elaborate on the specific procedures used to measure wealth and any other relevant variables in your study?

Response: Thank you for your concern regarding the household wealth index. While the table shows income categories, our wealth index is primarily based on household assets such as land, cash crops, and other resources. Income can be a factor influencing wealth, but this approach provides a more comprehensive picture of socioeconomic status.

5. Reference Category in Regression Model:

Your regression model utilizes "Others" as the reference category. This might not convey the most informative message. Could you consider revising this aspect of the model?

Response: thank you very much for this important concern. I have corrected it in the revised copy of the article.

Reviewer #1: Comments

This study provides valuable insights into the satisfaction levels of Community-Based Health Insurance beneficiaries regarding laboratory services in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. The authors have conducted a comprehensive assessment, utilizing a facility-based cross-sectional design and employing rigorous statistical analyses to explore various factors associated with satisfaction. The findings shed light on both areas of strength and areas for improvement within the healthcare system, particularly in public hospitals.

However, to improve the output, I have listed my comments and suggestions.

General recommendations:

• Line numbers are recommended for the reviewer to detect and label feedback.

• Spacing and indentation need attention (e.g., Introduction paragraph 4; Client …..).

• English grammar should be carefully checked.

Title: Cases should be appropriately oriented. Updated title “Community-Based Health Insurance Beneficiaries Satisfaction on Laboratory Services and Associated Factors in Selected Public Hospitals in Jimma Zone, Oromia Region, Southwest, Ethiopia”

Response: thank you very much for this important concern. I have corrected it in the revised copy of the article.

Abstract:

• Words in the first text should be written in full. For example, "SPSS" should be written as "Statistical Package of Social Sciences version 25."

• It is recommended to include the distribution of participants' ages in the summary.

Response: thank you, corrected it in the revised copy.

Introduction:

• Authors should consistently emphasize abbreviations throughout the paper, such as WHO, OOPS, NGOs, LMICs, CBHI. Some abbreviations are repeatedly used with the full term while others are not. Please ensure consistency in their usage throughout the paper.

Response: thank you so much for your insight; we have corrected it in the revised copy.

• Caution and revision are needed in citations. It's not recommended to include a bunch of references per paragraph. For example, in the second paragraph, 16 articles were cited at once (9-24), which could be overly vague. Instead, it's recommended to cite specific articles at each instance.

Response: thank you so much for your insight; we have corrected it in the revised copy of the article accordingly.

• In the Study Design section, it is recommended to include the statement "Fifty percent (50%) of the hospitals were randomly selected for community-based health insurance. That means about three of them (50%) were selected randomly by the lottery method." under the sample size determination

Response: thank you so much for your insight; we have corrected it in the revised copy of the article accordingly.

• The Population section should be separated from the concept of eligibility criteria and placed in its own section. For example: "The study included CBHI beneficiaries who attended selected hospitals for laboratory services during the study period, while those who were unable to hear or speak were excluded." Additionally, clarification is needed regarding the rationale for excluding individuals unable to hear or speak, particularly since they were already at the healthcare facility. Was their exclusion due to severe illness affecting consent or other justifications?

Response: thank you for your concern: Eligibility Criteria: CBHI beneficiaries who met the following criteria were included in the study: Attended one of the selected hospitals for laboratory services during the study period and able to provide informed consent were included

Exclusion Criteria: Individuals who were unable to hear or speak were excluded from the study.

Justification for Exclusion: Individuals who were unable to provide informed consent were excluded due to the study's requirement to understand the research procedures and potential risks and benefits.

Individuals who were unable to hear or speak were excluded due to potential challenges in effectively communicating study information and ensuring comprehension.

• In the Abstract section, mention of bivariate and multivariable analysis should also be included in the main section for consistency.

Response: we agree with your observation, thank you. We have corrected the editorial problem accordingly in the revised copy of the article

• While not mandatory, I personally recommend additional analysis to evaluate the goodness of model fit using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, along with reporting the associated p-value. Additionally, it would be beneficial to assess multicollinearity using variance inflation factors (VIFs)."

Response: thank you so much for your insight; we have corrected it in the revised copy of the article accordingly.

Result

• How was the household wealth index scaled in your study?

Response: Thank you for your concern regarding the household wealth index. While the table shows income categories, our wealth index is primarily based on household assets such as land, cash crops, and other resources. Income can be a factor influencing wealth, but this approach provides a more comprehensive picture of socioeconomic status.

Discussion

I would like to address the beginning of the Discussion section, which I found lacking in clarity and engagement. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The authors should interpret their findings in the context of existing literature, acknowledge limitations, and provide insights for future research and practical implications.

Response: thank you so much for your insight; we have corrected it in the revised copy of the article accordingly.

• Begin by summarizing the key findings of the study, highlighting both areas of strength and areas for improvement in CBHI beneficiaries' satisfaction with laboratory services. Discuss how these findings align with or diverge from previous research on patient satisfaction in healthcare settings.

Response: thank you so much for your insight; we have corrected it in the revised copy of the article accordingly.

• Provide a comprehensive review of relevant literature on patient satisfaction, particularly in the context of CBHI schemes or similar healthcare initiatives in Ethiopia or other comparable settings. Compare the findings of the current study with previous research, noting similarities, differences, and potential explanations for discrepancies.

Response: thank you so much for your insight; we have corrected it in the revised copy of the article accordingly.

• Offer explanations for the observed patterns in satisfaction levels and associated factors identified in the study. Consider factors such as socio-demographic characteristics of beneficiaries, healthcare system infrastructure, and quality of service delivery in public hospitals. Discuss how these factors may influence patients' perceptions of laboratory services.

Response: thank you so much for your insight; we have corrected it in the revised copy of the article accordingly.

Limitation

• What about as the cross-sectional design, potential biases introduced by the sampling method, and limitations in generalizability due to the study's focus on a specific geographic area?

Response: thank you very much; we have corrected it in the revised copy.

References

• It is better to minimize the number of references.

Response: thank you; we have corrected it in the revised copy accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Comments

This paper has explored CBHI user's satisfaction regarding laboratory services in Jimma zone.

In background

Make sure to introduce all abbreviations in the text before using them (for example "OOPS"). Additionally, once you’ve introduced the abbreviation you can just use it in the remainder of the text (for example CBHI) Have you exhausted all possible confounders? (Disease severity...)

Response: thanks a lot; we have corrected it in the revised copy of the article.

In method:

• Clarify the sampling frame and the sampling method; "focusing on six hospitals: eight governmental, two private and 120 health centers. Fifty percent (50%) of the hospitals were randomly selected for community-based health insurance." This part is a bit confusing on the study population section.

Response: thank you very much for your observation

This study focuses on Public hospitals in the Zone. The sampling frame included a complete list of all functional public (n=6) hospitals only that operating in the area. Fifty percent (50%) of the hospitals were randomly selected for further study into community-based health insurance programs. This resulted in three public hospitals being included in the study.

• Any justifications as to why those with visual and auditory impairment/difficulties were excluded?

• Was there any other inclusion or exclusion criterion that was used?

Response: thank you for your concern: Eligibility Criteria: CBHI beneficiaries who met the following criteria were included in the study: Attended one of the selected hospitals for laboratory services during the study period and able to provide informed consent were included

Exclusion Criteria: Individuals who were unable to hear or speak were excluded from the study.

Justification for Exclusion: Individuals who were unable to provide informed consent were excluded due to the study's requirement to understand the research procedures and potential risks and benefits.

Individuals who were unable to hear or speak were excluded due to potential challenges in effectively communicating study information and ensuring comprehension.

• On table 5 of the results: try to use uniform reference categories (either first or last)

Response: thank you very much for your insight: The reference category can be chosen based on the research question or the variable itself. In the table, the author likely chose College+ in education as the reference because it might represent the highest level of education achieved and allows for easier comparison with other categories. We are not focusing on uniformity of the reference categories

On the discussion

• Consider adding the interpretations of the odds ratios to further elaborate the findings.

• Can we compare studies viewing overall satisfaction with one viewing just laboratory service related?

Response: thank you very much; we have corrected it in the revised copy of the article.

General concern regarding the interview tool since it's not an internationally validated tool, could you do a validity check (internal consistency..) ?

Response: thank you very much for you observation; we have corrected it in the revised copy of the article

Overall review the structure of the paragraphs in terms of global, regional and local data as well as in terms of associated factors, refine the grammar and consider getting it proof read.

Response: thank you very much; we have corrected it in the revised copy of the article.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0308814.s003.docx (24.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Kiddus Yitbarek

22 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-14840R1Community-Based Health Insurance Beneficiaries satisfaction on Laboratory Services and Associated Factors in Selected Public Hospitals in Jimma Zone, Oromia Region, Southwest EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Getachew,

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.

Dear Dr. Getachew,

As I can see from the revised version of your manuscript, many improvements have been made. However, there are still issues with grammar, writing style, and formatting that need to be addressed. I strongly recommend that a copy editor review the entire manuscript before publication.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 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.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kiddus Yitbarek, MPH

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: I personI am satisfied with the responses and want to give credit for the great work. I would only like to recommend the authors recheck the reference format, e.g., 4, 7, & 8.

Reviewer #2: Most of the comments have been addressed,but I would recommend you either rephrase or revise the eligibility criteria

**********

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: Eyob Girma Abera

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

PLoS One. 2024 Aug 14;19(8):e0308814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308814.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


27 Jul 2024

Point-by-point response to review questions

Dear Editor,

Thank you for facilitating the review of our manuscript and the reviewers for their invaluable comments. After careful review of all the invaluable comments raised by the editor and reviewers, we have prepared a point-by-point response and also revised the manuscript accordingly.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer #1:

I person I am satisfied with the responses and want to give credit for the great work. I would only like to recommend the authors recheck the reference format, e.g., 4, 7, & 8.

Response: thank you very much for this important concern. I have corrected it in the revised copy of the article.

Reviewer #2:

Most of the comments have been addressed, but I would recommend you either rephrase or revise the eligibility criteria

Response: thank you very much for this important concern. I have corrected it in the revised copy of the article.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0308814.s004.docx (16.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Kiddus Yitbarek

31 Jul 2024

Community-Based Health Insurance Beneficiaries satisfaction on Laboratory Services and Associated Factors in Selected Public Hospitals in Jimma Zone, Oromia Region, Southwest Ethiopia

PONE-D-24-14840R2

Dear Dr. Getachew,

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,

Kiddus Yitbarek, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Kiddus Yitbarek

5 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-14840R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Getachew,

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. Kiddus Yitbarek

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. Survey questions in the English and sampling procedure.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0308814.s001.docx (33.3KB, docx)
    S1 Dataset

    (DTA)

    pone.0308814.s002.dta (179.5KB, dta)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0308814.s003.docx (24.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0308814.s004.docx (16.8KB, 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