Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jan 3;20(1):e0290492. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290492

Demographic, social and health system factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan: A nested case-control study

Ahsan Maqbool Ahmad 1,*, Iqbal H Shah 2, Ali Muhammad Mir 3, Maqsood Sadiq 3, Muddassir Altaf Bosan 4
Editor: Muhammad Haroon Stanikzai5
PMCID: PMC11698442  PMID: 39752399

Abstract

Background

Pakistan has experienced a significant reduction in maternal mortality with a decline of 33 percent between 2006 and 2019. However, the country still grapples with a high number (186 per 100,000 live births) of maternal deaths each year. This study aims to identify socio-demographic and health system related factors associated with maternal mortality.

Methods

Using the nested case-control design, we conducted an in-depth analysis of Pakistan Maternal Mortality Survey (PMMS) 2019. We identified 147 maternal deaths occurring within three years prior to the PMMS 2019 as “cases” and 724 women who gave birth and were alive during the same period as “controls”. Socio-demographic characteristics of cases and controls were compared, and multivariate regression was employed to investigate the predictors of maternal mortality in Pakistan.

Results

Cases and controls were similar on access to antenatal care (ANC) and ANC provider but differed on age, education, number of pregnancies, type of delivery, tetanus toxoid vaccination during last pregnancy, and contraceptive usage. A higher proportion of cases had deliveries by skilled birth attendants (83% compared to 63% among controls) while home deliveries were more common among controls (32% compared to 25% among cases). Odds of maternal death were lowest among women aged 20–29 years (odds ratio–OR: 0.5; 95% CI 0.23–1.07) and those with secondary or higher education (OR: 0.35; 95% CI 0.17–0.74). Surprisingly, deliveries attended by skilled birth attendants were associated with higher odds of maternal death (OR: 4.07; 95% CI 2.19–7.57) compared to those who were not.

Conclusion

This study identifies secondary or higher maternal education, having had tetanus injection during the last pregnancy, ever-used contraception or being in the age group of 20–29 years were factors associated with lower risk of maternal mortality. Conversely, skilled birth attendance increases the risk of maternal death in Pakistan. Further investigation is needed into the determinants of high maternal mortality.

Introduction

Childbirth is typically a joyful occasion, yet 287,000 (uncertainty interval–UI: 273,000 to 343,000) women were estimated to have died globally of maternal causes during pregnancy, childbirth or within 42 days of pregnancy termination in 2020 [1]. Although there has been 66.9 percent reduction in maternal mortality ratio (MMR) from 417 in 2000 to 138 maternal deaths per 100,000 livebirths in 2020, South Asia accounted for 16.4 percent of all maternal deaths in 2020 globally [1]. Notably Pakistan exhibited a higher MMR in 2020 at 154 compared to other Muslim majority countries such as Bangladesh (123), Iran (22) and Egypt (17) and other South Asian countries like India (103) and Sri Lanka (29) [1]. Pakistan has witnessed a decline in MMR from 276 in 2006–07 [2] to 186 (CI: 138–234) in 2019 [3], representing a one-third decline in the number of maternal deaths between 2007 and 2019. It is worth noting that these estimates pertain to a period of three years prior to each survey. However, given that the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target for reducing maternal mortality is to lower the MMR to less than 70 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births by 2030 [1], Pakistan still faces the imperative to make substantial progress on this indicator particularly in addressing the high burden of maternal mortality among some population subgroups.

Studies and surveys in Pakistan show estimates of MMRs ranging from 276 in 2006–07 and 279 in 2000–2001 to 401 in 2014 [2, 3, 9]. The diversity in estimates of MMR has been due to the use of different measurement approaches. Model-based estimates differ from those based on verbal autopsy data collected in cross-sectional surveys such as Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). Apart from a study [8], very few have examined the predictors of maternal mortality, and none has applied a conceptual framework to guide the analysis.

Both Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey (PDHS) and Pakistan Maternal Mortality Survey (PMMS) provide valuable information on the level of maternal mortality nationally, by region and urban-rural place of residence. However, there remains a dearth of understanding regarding the contextual, health system, social, and biological factors that significantly influence the reduction of preventable maternal deaths in Pakistan. By identifying subgroups of women with high risk of maternal mortality, this study aims to call for concerted efforts focusing on these groups. The study also aims to pinpoint interventions that are needed to reduce preventable maternal deaths in Pakistan. In addition, it highlights the application of case-control methodology to the analysis of maternal mortality data collected in cross-sectional surveys such as DHS and Maternal Mortality Surveys.

Materials and methods

Building upon prior research on the determinants of maternal mortality [48], we developed a conceptual framework to explore the predictors of maternal mortality using the 2019 Pakistan Maternal Mortality Survey (PMMS) data that used a verbal autopsy tool. Specifically, we hypothesize that socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and health seeking behavior and comorbidities jointly or individually are associated with the risk of maternal deaths in Pakistan and disproportionately impact certain population subgroups (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Conceptual framework of predictors of maternal death.

Fig 1

Study design

We applied case-control study design to data from PMMS. PMMS and other cross-sectional surveys covering maternal deaths often use verbal autopsy module to ascertain information about the deceased. Case-control design is an appropriate option to study the outcome of maternal mortality where those who died are classified as “cases” and those who survived as “controls”. The purpose of classifying into these two groups on outcome, that is, maternal deaths in this study, is to investigate the underlying factors that distinguish the two groups.

Study settings

The data were obtained from the PMMS that was the first exclusive survey on maternal health, morbidity, and mortality in Pakistan. It was carried out by the National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) in 2019. Using a multi-stage cluster design, this nationally representative survey was conducted across four provinces (Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa–KP, Punjab and Sindh) as well as in Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K). These provinces and regions differ in terms of ethnicity and the main language spoken as well as literacy rate and access to health care facilities. The sampling design of 2019 PMMS provided estimates at the national level and for the four provinces (Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa combined with Federally Administered Tribal Areas; Punjab combined with Islamabad Capital Territory; and Sindh) and two regions (GB and AJ&K). National estimates excluded GB and AJ&K.

Data collection

Data collection for the 2019 PMMS was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, 11,859 ever-married women aged 15–49 in 108,766 households were interviewed. Among other questions, women were asked about births and deaths, including deaths among ever-married women aged 15–49 during the three years prior to the survey. Detailed verbal autopsies were conducted among households that reported at least one death of a woman aged 15–49 years. In the second phase, a subsample of households was randomly selected to provide information on women aged 15–49 including a complete pregnancy history.

We performed a nested case-control study in which all direct and indirect maternal deaths (147) identified in the PMMS were regarded as cases, while the controls were randomly selected by matching on the cluster from the rest of (6,907) women who reported a live birth during the last three years before the survey. The PMMS Household Questionnaire collected information on all deaths in the three years before the survey. All female deaths (1,177) were further investigated in detail using the verbal autopsy (VA) questionnaire, which was administered by specially trained interviewers. A total of 1,117 verbal autopsies were reviewed by a panel of nosologists (expert obstetricians and gynecologists and physicians) at the National Committee of Maternal and Neonatal Health (NCMNH). The panel classified maternal deaths into direct, indirect, coincidental, and late maternal deaths, based on the cause of death [9]. International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) defines maternal death as the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from unintentional or incidental causes [10]. Direct maternal deaths are those “resulting from obstetric complications of the pregnant state (pregnancy, labor and puerperium), and from interventions, omissions, incorrect treatment, or from a chain of events resulting from any of the above” [10]. Indirect maternal deaths are those “resulting from previous existing disease or disease that developed during pregnancy, and that were not due to direct obstetric causes but were aggravated by the physiologic effects of pregnancy” [10]. Our study analyzes direct and indirect maternal deaths only.

The nested case-control design extends the flexibility of focusing specifically on those who experienced mortality (cases) and a set of matched controls per case providing the statistical strength to conduct analysis through which variability due to known and unknown risk factors related to various characteristics and health-seeking behaviors can be controlled appropriately.

There was a 1:5 ratio between cases and controls. All deaths of women of reproductive age that occurred during the last three years preceding the survey and classified as direct or indirect maternal deaths were included as “cases” in the study (N = 147). On the other hand, all women who were alive and reported live births during the same period and matched on the same clusters as cases were classified as “controls. The controls (N = 724) having the required information about risk factors were included for the analysis (Fig 2). To maximize the statistical power of analysis, inclusivity for statistical analysis purposes was considered in a way, so that information on maximum number of cases could be utilized. In this milieu, there were 136 cases that were included in the final analysis on the basis that they had at least one cluster matched control available. As a result, there were only four clusters for whom a lesser number of controls per case (i.e., less than ratio of 1:5) were available. The sample sizes were computed at the 95% confidence level, at a power of 90%, an assumed 20% rate of exposure among controls. Note that the information for cases (deceased women) was provided by the household member(s) most knowledgeable about the deceased woman’s symptoms preceding her death and her background characteristics, whereas information about the controls was provided by women themselves.

Fig 2. Scheme of cases and controls identification and matching.

Fig 2

Study variables

Operationalizing the conceptual framework (shown in Fig 1), maternal death was taken as an outcome variable that was dichotomized into whether the death occurred or not (i.e., cases were maternal deaths, and controls were women who were alive and had a live birth). The proximate determinants of the outcome of maternal death are the health seeking behaviors such as seeking antenatal care (ANC); antenatal care provider; month of pregnancy at first ANC visit; receiving tetanus toxoid (TT) injection during pregnancies and comorbidities such as composite index of complications and composite symptoms. Socio-economic variables examined for their potential role in women level risk factors and health seeking behaviors to exacerbate or reduce the risk of maternal death are region and urban/rural place of residence and educational level of women. Women level risk factors include age; parity; number of living children; ever had caesarean section; place of delivery; assistance with delivery; type of delivery and contraceptive usage. Together, these variables attenuate or escalate the risk of maternal mortality.

Statistical analysis and software

Multi-stage analyses included the phases of descriptive analysis and inferential analyses by applying univariate and multivariate regression techniques. The proportional representation of cases versus controls was similar for the matching variables of region/province of residence and place of residence (i.e., urban vs rural).

Frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical variables and mean with standard deviation for continuous variables (for example, composite complications and composite symptoms). Cross tabulations were developed for categorical variables to identify any sparse data necessitating merging with other categories.

Across the initial stages of the analyses, three sets of iterations were performed to re-define categories of independent variables. Given the small number of cases in the survey, the number of categories were merged for variables to allow for meaningful comparisons.

To determine the risk factors associated with maternal deaths, these factors were examined separately in univariate analysis. Crude odds ratios (ORs) and matched odds ratios (matched ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed by simple logistic regression and conditional logistic regression, respectively. Variables with a p-value less than 0.25 at the univariate level were included in the multivariable analysis and multi-collinearity among the independent variables was checked. Multivariable analysis was done using the same regression techniques to determine risk factors associated with maternal deaths by computing adjusted odds ratios (adjusted ORs) with 95% CIs. Variables having p-value less than 0.05 were kept in the final multivariable model and the Hosmer Lemeshaw goodness of fit test was applied to check goodness of fit of the model using simple logistic regression technique.

We assessed the impact of each of the specified risk factors on maternal mortality by estimating odds ratios (ORs) using a logistic regression model to control for the effects of known biological and socioeconomic variables (as shown in Fig 1). Analysis was done using Stata version 14 (a software for data analysis and management StatCorp, College Station, Texas).

Ethical statement

We analyzed anonymized data available in the public domain for secondary analysis. The National Institute for Population Studies that collected the primary data observed all the required ethical considerations, including obtaining the requisite approvals and consent from respondents for the interview.

Results

Profile of cases and controls and risk factors

Table 1 shows the number and percentage distribution (%) of cases and controls by background variables. Similar proportion of cases and controls who had a live birth, stillbirth, miscarriage, or abortion in three years prior to the survey accessed antenatal care (ANC); and saw an obstetrician/gynecologist or a doctor for ANC. Cases were, however, distinctly different from controls on important attributes like age group, level of education, number of children alive, type of delivery, tetanus toxoid vaccination during last pregnancy, ever used a contraceptive method. Controls were more numerous in the age group 20–29 years (54.1%) compared to cases (34.7%), but less numerous in the youngest age group 15–19 years (5.9% vs 10.9%) and in older age groups of 30–39 and 40–49 years. More controls had middle or less (23.3%) or secondary and higher education (18.8%) compared to cases (17.7% and 12.9%, respectively). Among cases a higher proportion (19.5%) had seven or more living children compared to controls (11.6%). All controls had tetanus injections (99.9%) compared to cases (86.4%) and more of them ever-used a contraceptive method (36.3%) than cases (11.6%) and higher proportion had a cesarean section (27.9%) compared to the controls (14.4%).

Table 1. Number and percentage distribution (%) of cases and controls by background variables, Pakistan, 2019.

Name of Variables Cases Controls
No. % No. %
Region of residence
Punjab 32 21.77 150 20.72
Sindh 42 28.57 210 29.01
KP 27 18.37 134 18.51
Balochistan 26 17.69 130 17.96
GB/ AJ&K 20 13.61 100 13.81
Total 147 100 724 100
Place of residence
Urban 49 33.33 242 33.43
Rural 98 66.67 482 66.57
Total 147 100 724 100
Age groups (years)
15–19 16 10.88 43 5.94
20–29 51 34.69 392 54.14
30–39 66 44.9 239 33.01
40–49 14 9.52 50 6.91
Total 147 100 724 100
Highest class completed
No education 102 69.39 419 57.87
Middle or less 26 17.69 169 23.34
Secondary and higher 19 12.93 136 18.78
Total 147 100 724 100
Ever given birth
Yes 128 87.07 698 96.41
No 19 12.93 26 3.59
Total 147 100 724 100
Number of children alive
3 and less 64 50.00 446 61.6
Between 4–6 39 30.47 194 26.8
7 and above 25 19.53 84 11.6
Total 128 100 724 100
Ever had a caesarean section operation
Yes 41 27.89 104 14.36
No 106 72.11 620 85.64
Total 147 100 724 100
Did see anyone for antenatal care
Yes 125 85.03 636 87.85
No 22 14.97 88 12.15
Total 147 100 724 100
Who did she see for antenatal care
Did not see anyone 22 14.97 88 12.15
Obstetrician/Specialist 59 40.14 330 45.58
Doctor 49 33.33 232 32.04
Nurse/Midwife/LHV 13 8.84 64 8.84
Nonskilled Birth Attendants 4 2.72 10 1.38
Total 147 100 724 100
Trimester of pregnancy at first health provider visit
1st trimester 63 50.4 358 56.29
2nd trimester 37 29.6 200 31.45
3rd trimester 25 20.0 78 12.26
Total 125 100 636 100
During last pregnancy had an injection to prevent tetanus
Yes 127 86.39 723 99.86
No 20 13.61 1 0.14
Total 147 100 724 100
Place of delivery
Home 24 25.26 215 32.48
Govt. hospital/other public 41 43.16 221 33.38
Pvt. hospital/clinic 30 31.58 226 34.14
Total 95 100 662 100
Assistance at delivery
Skilled Birth Attendants 122 82.99 457 63.12
Others 25 17.01 267 36.88
Total 147 100 724 100
How was the delivery
Normal 58 61.05 328 73.54
assisted vaginal 7 7.37 14 3.14
caesarean section 30 31.58 104 23.32
Total 95 100 446 100
Ever used a Contraceptive method
Yes 17 11.56 263 36.33
No 130 88.44 461 63.67
Total 147 100 724 100

Surprisingly, a higher proportion of cases compared to controls had their last delivery by a skilled birth attendant (83% vs 63.1%) and delivered at a government hospital (43.2% vs 33.4%) while home delivery was more common among controls (32.5%) compared to cases (25.3%). The average level of composite complications index (including high blood pressure, diabetes, anemia, and jaundice during last pregnancy) was similar = 0.62 (standard deviation 0.77) for cases as compared to 0.63 (standard deviation 0.77) for controls. However, cases experienced a higher level (2.35 with standard deviation 1.86) of composite symptoms (fever, fits, vaginal bleeding, jaundice, abdominal pain, breathing difficulty, paleness/anemia, swelling feet or ankles and swelling face during last pregnancy/illness) compared to controls (1.85 with standard deviation 1.62).

Predictors of maternal mortality

The multivariate analysis controlled for the significant confounding effects of age, education, ever given birth, ever had a cesarean section, had injection in the last pregnancy to prevent tetanus, whether received delivery assistance from a skilled attendant, and ever used a contraceptive method while looking at the conditional odds of each one for maternal death (Table 2). The odds ratios after controlling for factors included in the model were higher for women giving birth at younger age (15–19 years) or at older ages (30–39 and 40–49 years). Age group 20–29 years had the least risk of 0.5 adjusted odds ratio (CI: 0.23–1.07) compared to women in ages 15–19 years. Women with education had lower odds than those with no education—0.35 odds ratio (CI: 0.17–0.74) for women with secondary education and 0.51 (CI: 0.27–0.98) for women with middle or less education—compared to 1.0 for women with no education. Having ever had a cesarean section doubles the odds of maternal death while having had the tetanus injection in the last pregnancy drastically reduced the odds for maternal death close to zero as compared to women who were not vaccinated. Also, having ever-used contraceptive method reduces the odds to 0.21 (CI: 0.11–0.39) compared to 1.0 for never users. Delivery by skilled birth attendant was associated with higher odds of maternal death. Having delivery by a skilled attendant had the matched conditional odds of 4.07 (CI: 2.19–7.57) compared to the reference category of delivery by “others”, including home delivery. Women with prior history of symptoms and those who have caesarean section were more likely to have delivery by a skilled attendant and are thus predispose to the risk of death, especially if the quality of care is poor or the attendant lacks the required skills.

Table 2. Multivariate conditional logistic and unconditional logistic regression of predictors of maternal mortality, Pakistan, 2019.

Name of Variables Conditional logistic regression (N = 871) Unconditional logistic regression (N = 871) Goodness of fit
Matched Adjusted OR’s 95% CI’s p value Adjusted OR’s 95% CI’s p value
Age groups (years) N = 871
15–19 1 - - 1 - -
20–29 0.50 (0.23–1.07) 0.075 0.47 (0.21–0.93) 0.031
30–39 1.34 (0.61–2.95) 0.467 1.24 (0.59–2.61) 0.564
40–49 1.21 (0.42–3.45) 0.726 1.06 (0.40–2.83) 0.912
Highest class completed
No education 1 - - 1 - -
Middle or less 0.51 (0.27–0.98) 0.042 0.57 (0.33–0.99) 0.046
Secondary and higher 0.35 (0.17–0.74) 0.006 0.49 (0.27–0.90) 0.021
Ever given birth
Yes 0.19 (0.09–0.39) 0.000 0.21 (0.10–0.45) 0.000 Hosmer and lemeshow Goodness of fit–test statistics (chi2) = 62.39
No 1 - - 1 - -
Ever had a caesarean section operation
Yes 2.05 (1.18–3.55) 0.011 2.22 (1.35–3.66) 0.002
No 1 - - 1 - - p value = 0.9380 (model is good fit)
During last pregnancy had an injection to prevent tetanus
Yes 0.007 (0.001–0.06) 0.000 0.005 (0.001–0.046) 0.000
No 1 - - 1 - -
Assistance at delivery
Skilled Birth Attendants 4.07 (2.19–7.57) 0.000 4.13 (2.32–7.35) 0.000
Others 1 - - 1 - -
Ever Used a Contraceptive method
Yes 0.21 (0.11–0.39) 0.000 0.22 (0.12–0.39) 0.000
No 1 - - 1 - -

*Matching variables in relation to urban–rural status and province of residence were retained in the model as matching variables

Discussion

Key findings: We assessed the socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan. We found that cases and controls were similar on access to antenatal care (ANC) and ANC provider but differed on age, education, number of pregnancies, type of delivery, tetanus toxoid vaccination during last pregnancy, and contraceptive use. A higher proportion of cases had deliveries by skilled birth attendants (83%) compared to controls (63%) while home deliveries were more common among controls (32%) compared to cases (25%). Odds of maternal death were lowest among women aged 20–29 years (odds ratio–OR: 0.5; 95% CI 0.23–1.07) and those with secondary or higher education (OR: 0.35; 95% CI 0.17–0.74). Surprisingly, deliveries attended by skilled birth attendants were associated with higher odds of maternal death (OR: 4.07; 95% CI 2.19–7.57) compared to those who were not.

The findings indicate that women in the age group of 20–29 years, who were educated, had ever used a contraceptive method, or had tetanus injection during the last pregnancy had lower odds of maternal death. These findings are expected and consistent with findings from other studies both in Pakistan [7, 8, 11, 12] and elsewhere. However, the finding that women whose last delivery was by a skilled birth attendant had higher odds of maternal death is counterintuitive, though consistent in both PDHS 2006–07 [8] and our analysis of PMMS data. There are three explanations for this unexpected result derived from the in-depth analysis of the verbal autopsies of the deceased women identified in the PMMS [9]. First, women after having sought care from diverse types of care providers for symptoms/complications of pregnancy reached the skilled attendant with a severe complication/symptom(s) in a critical condition in many cases after shuffling between two to three facilities before reaching the final referral facility. The in-depth analysis further showed that most maternal deaths occurred at health facilities following delays in deciding to seek professional care and in reaching an appropriate health facility for care [9]. In a social-cultural context with little or no birth planning and accessing care when situation is worsened, this selectivity in terms of women with a complicated pregnancy or delivery reaching late a skilled attendant, manifested in a higher risk of death. Also, women with prior history of symptoms or those requiring cesarean section are more likely to approach skilled attendant for delivery. Such a pattern is noted where an effective referral system is not operational. A study of rural areas of Balochistan and North-West Frontier Province (now renamed as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) showed a similar pattern of elevated risk of maternal mortality for women who had delivered by a skilled attendant compared to those by a family member or traditional birth attendant [11]. A similar pattern was also observed in eight urban squatter settlements of Karachi [12].

Second, it was found that skilled attendants were not adequately trained and provided a sub-optimal quality of care. The in-depth analysis shows that 36% of all maternal deaths, direct or indirect, and 91% of direct maternal deaths were due to surgical or medical misadventures [9]. Indifference by unmotivated staff, poor skills of health care providers, and lack of medicine and equipment together contributed to heavy death toll of women reaching the facility in reasonable condition [9]. Third, the finding of higher maternal mortality among women with births attended by a skilled provider is consistently reported in studies from Pakistan and the qualitative analysis of verbal autopsies indicates that women with complicated pregnancy or delivery to start with were more likely to seek care from a skilled attendant. The pathway to skilled delivery is, therefore, shaped by the prior history of symptoms exacerbating pregnancy complications leading to institutional care and delivery by a skilled attendant. In addition, the poor quality of service, including poor skills of providers contribute to higher maternal mortality for women with delivery by a skilled attendant. This noteworthy finding indicates that the emphasis on institutional deliveries and delivery by a skilled birth attendant to reduce maternal mortality is insufficient to reduce maternal mortality where norms for pregnancy care are lacking, but a necessary concomitant of complicated pregnancies. Moreover, it is imperative to ensure the quality of care and enhance the skills of health care providers to effectively manage the serious complications of women reaching the facility.

Despite the progress made in reducing maternal mortality, approximately 1 in 143 women in Pakistan will die during her lifetime due to complications during pregnancy, childbirth/abortion, or during the 42 days following pregnancy termination. WHO estimated that 98,000 maternal deaths occurred in Pakistan in 2020 [1]. Substantial inequalities also continue to persist by region, urban-rural place of residence and by subgroups of population in Pakistan. The greatest decline from 2006–07 to 2019 was observed in Balochistan province which nevertheless continues to exhibit the highest MMR of 298 (CI: 130–466) per 100,000 live births in 2019 compared to any other region [3]. Compared to 2006–07, progress was also noted in 2019 for an increase in literacy rate and higher educational attainment, especially in rural areas [9]. Higher order (6 or more) births declined from 22% to 15%; four or more ANC visits nearly doubled from 28% to 52% as well as the visit to obstetrician/gynecologist and doctor for ANC from 33% to 60% [2, 3]. Not having even one ANC visit during the last pregnancy declined from 35% to 8%. The coverage of mobile phones in rural areas also doubled from 46% in 2006–07 to 93% in 2019 [2, 3].

This progress has been, however, slow, and uneven. Women in rural areas, with no education and those living in Balochistan province continue to suffer excessive risk of maternal death than their counterparts in urban areas, living in other regions of Pakistan or educated, especially those attaining higher levels of education. In addition, little progress has been made in rural infrastructure in terms of improved access to the nearest functioning basic health unit (BHU), rural health center (RHC), secondary/tertiary hospital or the availability of motorized public transport [9].

Limitations: Estimating maternal mortality and its risk factors require an exceptionally large sample size that is often not feasible. To keep the sample size within manageable limits, a three-year recall of births and deaths was used in PDHS 2006–07 and PMMS 2019. This approach has problems in that the recall of deaths may have declined during the second and third years before the survey, due to recall errors, misreporting of dates, and/or dissolution or change in the composition of households. It is, therefore, possible that recall errors for the second or third year before the survey underreported maternal deaths. Also, information on the causes and circumstances of deaths ascertained through the verbal autopsy may be less dependable for deaths that occurred in the second or third years of recall. Another potential limitation is intentional or unintentional misreporting. Given the cultural sensitivity, induced abortions are notoriously underreported or misreported, especially in the restrictive legal contexts such as Pakistan. It is, therefore, possible that some of the induced abortions and related deaths were under-reported.

Recommendations

High levels of maternal mortality, inequity in the burden of maternal mortality and the finding that women having delivery by a skilled attendant suffer higher risk of death indicate several policy and programmatic implications. First, the health system needs to improve the quality of the obstetric care provided, especially within the public facilities. The government must properly equip facilities and institute proper accountability mechanisms so that all deaths are audited and accounted for. Second, pre-marital counselling should be launched to discourage childbearing during adolescence. Both young (<20 years) and older women of ages over 30 should be given priority attention during ANC, delivery, and the postnatal period. Third, family planning should be promoted for maternal and child survival through birth spacing and prevention of unintended and high-risk pregnancies. According to the PDHS 2017–18, nearly 18% of women became pregnant six to 17 months after a live birth and 37% within 24 months. PDHS data show that the highest proportion of closely spaced pregnancies occur in the adolescent age group of 15–19 years. Compared to older women, this group also has the highest unmet need for birth spacing—one out of six women in this age bracket wants to space their pregnancies but is unable to do so.

Unmet need for family planning (FP) stems from the inability of women to access services. The Lady Health Worker (LHW) program, launched in 1994, had the mandate to provide doorstep FP services to rural women, who have higher unmet need and more unintended pregnancies than urban women. This highly acclaimed program is currently plagued with many issues, the foremost of which is a perennial shortage of contraceptive supplies. Within public health facilities, service providers do not consider offering family planning services and counselling as their responsibility. This needs to be changed through some bold decisions by the government. A major step should be mandatory provision of FP services through the public and private health networks. This has several advantages, including avoiding the hesitancy some women and men have in visiting the socially stigmatized Family Planning centers run by the Population Welfare Department. General health facility visits offer several opportunities for discussing family planning, such as during antenatal care visits, immediately after delivery, during postnatal checkups, and child immunization visits. On these occasions, couples can be encouraged to discuss their family planning needs and individually focused options can be suggested to help meet their needs. This service delivery approach would also allow men to discuss family planning with male health care providers.

The Population Council estimates that even without increasing the current coverage of skilled birth attendance; by simply meeting the 17% unmet need for family planning and thus raising current contraceptive use from 34% to 51%, Pakistan could lower maternal mortality by around 30% and save every year 4,000 maternal lives. With increasing number of women continuing to enter reproductive ages without little or no concomitant rise in modern contraceptive use, women will continue to experience high number of pregnancies that expose them to risks of maternal morbidity and mortality.

Fourth, tetanus toxoid injection during pregnancy should be universal because of its protective effect. Pakistan must strengthen its immunization program and ensure that the injection is made available at both public and private sector facilities. Fifth, a functional and efficient referral system needs to be in place that prevents women shuffling between facilities and instead reach an appropriate facility equipped to provide comprehensive obstetric care. For ensuring the functional integrity of the referral system, an ambulance system must be put in place that connects the lower to the higher referral facilities. Interventions that make optimal use of the high coverage of mobile phones with home visits by Lady Health Workers and Community Midwives are needed for the continuum of care for maternal, neonatal and child health. The emphasis on institutional delivery and by a skilled birth attendant must be accompanied with strengthening quality of care and providers’ skills, especially in public sector hospitals and facilities that are accessed by poor women and those with little or no education. Concerted efforts and investments are urgently needed to meet the public health and human rights imperative of saving maternal lives. This will also enable Pakistan to meet the Sustainable Development Goal 3 target 3.1 to reduce MMR to less than 70 per 100,000 live births by 2030.

Acknowledgments

We thank the National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) for providing the PMMS 2019 data and members of the Technical Advisory Committee for helpful comments and suggestions.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2020: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and UNDESA/Population Division. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023.
  • 2.National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) and Macro International. Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey 2006–07. Islamabad, Pakistan, National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) and Macro International Inc; 2008.
  • 3.National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) and ICF. Pakistan Maternal Mortality Survey. 2019: Final Report. Islamabad, Pakistan, National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) and Macro International Inc; 2020.
  • 4.McCarthy J, Maine D. A framework for analyzing the determinants of maternal mortality. Studies in family planning. 1992;23 (1):23–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Filippi V, Chou D, Barreix M, Say L, WHO Maternal Morbidity Working Group (MMWG), Barbour K, et al. A new conceptual framework for maternal morbidity. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2018; 141:4–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cleland J, Conde-Agudelo A, Peterson H, Ross J, Tsui A. Contraception and health. The Lancet. 2012;380(9837):149–56. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60609-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hanif M, Khalid S, Rasul A, Mahmood K. Maternal mortality in rural areas of Pakistan: challenges and prospects. Rural Heal. 2021; 27:1040–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Midhet F, Durrani S, and Jaffery S. Maternal Mortality. Women and Children’s Health: an in-depth Analysis of 2006–07 Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey Data. Islamabad, National Institute of Population Studies; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.The Population Council. Explaining maternal mortality: an in-depth analysis of Pakistan Maternal Mortality Survey 2019. Islamabad: The Population Council; 2022.
  • 10.World Health Organization. ICD-11 for mortality and morbidity statistics. Version: 2019 April. Geneva: WHO; 2019. Available from: https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en.
  • 11.Midhet F, Becker S, Berendes HW. Contextual determinants of maternal mortality in rural Pakistan. Social Science & Medicine; 1998;46 (12):1587–98. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)10137-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fikree FF, Gray RH, Berendes HW, Karim MS. A community‐based nested case‐control study of maternal mortality. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics; 1994;47(3):247–55. doi: 10.1016/0020-7292(94)90569-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Abera Mersha

4 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-22204Why mothers continue to die in Pakistan: a nested case-control study of predictors of maternal mortalityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Maqbool Ahmad,

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 Apr 18 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,

Abera Mersha, MSc.

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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: 

Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

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

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

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

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

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

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: 1. The study presents the results of original research.

I am wondering this manuscript. I found publish in the medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.10.23293928; this version posted August 15, 2023.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

I am wondering this manuscript. I found publish in the medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.10.23293928; this version posted August 15, 2023.

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

No comment

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

No comment

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

Yes it is “The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English”

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

The ethics of experimentation and research integrity issue did not show in manuscript. If the project used the secondary data, IRB should be explained about exempt.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

No comment

Reviewer #2: Why Mothers Continue To Die In Pakistan: A Nested Case-Control Study Of Predictors Of Maternal Mortality

Summary of the Research

Maternal mortality ratio (MMR) declined in Pakistan from 276 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006-07 to 186 in 2019. Despite this decline, reasons why mothers continue to die, the inequity in the burden of maternal mortality and its predictors largely remain unknown. The in-depth analysis of Pakistan Maternal Mortality Survey 2019 was undertaken using the nested case-control design. Cases and controls were similar on access to antenatal care (ANC) and ANC provider, but differed on age, education, number of pregnancies, type of delivery, tetanus toxoid vaccination during last pregnancy, and ever using a contraceptive method. More of the cases had their last delivery by a skilled birth attendant (83% compared to 63% among controls) and delivered at the government hospital (43% compared to 33% among controls) while home delivery was relatively more common among controls (32% compared to 25% among cases). Odds of maternal death were lowest for women giving birth during age 20-29 (odds ratio – OR: 0.5; 95% CI 0.23-1.07) as compared to women in age 15-19 and those age 30-39 (OR: 1.34; 95% CI 0.61-2.95) and 40-49 (OR: 1.21; 95% CI 0.42-3.45), and among women with secondary or higher education (OR: 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.74) compared to women with no education. Women in certain sub-groups confront higher risks of maternal death. Increasing female education, preventing early and late childbearing through contraceptive use, increasing tetanus vaccination during pregnancy, improving providers’ skills, and quality of health care are required to eliminate preventable maternal deaths in Pakistan.

Areas for improvement

Title:

Tile is concise and good well expressing and reflecting the content of the study.

Abstract:

The abstract is well written, however, the authors should revise the language to improve readability.

The authors should make sure that the abstract don’t exceed 300 words.

Introduction:

The authors should write details in introduction section to tell the reader about the general information about the phenomena under study.

The authors should mention the significant of the study and identify the gap in knowledge as well.

The authors should revise introduction section for grammar issues and language to improve readability.

The authors should clear identify the variables of the study.

The authors should explain theoretical framework of the study.

The authors should mention the significance of the study.

The authors should make this section more clear, so readers will understand what message you wanted them to understand.

Overall

Good and brief introduction section.

Material and Methods:

Clear section but The authors should revise the language to improve readability.

The authors should mention why they selected the design of the study clearly.

The authors should briefly explain what is PMMS and provide the full for of this abbreviation. From where they got this questionnaire.

The authors should mention about verbal autopsy (VA) questionnaire, is it different from PMMS questionnaire.

The authors should mention about other ethical consideration for data control.

The authors should briefly explain about Stata version 14.

I am not sure if there are specific criteria to include the participants, mention that please!

Results, discussion and conclusion:

Clear results, discussion and conclusion sections. But improve grammar and language for readability.

References:

The authors should revise all references according to the guidelines provided.

Make sure that all intext referencing reflecting with in the references list.

Reviewer #3: Well done for the reviewers in working with two databases to address an important global health problems. However, there are still some areas that need major revisions. Please see comments below:

Title: I feel like the title is too broad, at first sight I though this paper included demographic, social, economic, cultural factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan. I suggest using something more succinct like, "Demographic, Social and Clinical Factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan: A nested case control study"

Abstract: The abstract needs a lot of work, see couple suggestions below;

Background: In Parkistan, there has been a decline of maternal mortality by x% between 2006-2019. However, the MMR remains relatively high at xxxxx. This study aims to assess factors associated with MMR in Pakistan.

Methods: We used data from PMMS 2019. We employed a nested case control design. Cases were defined as.......Controls were defined as. We performed a multivariate regression with the following independent variable. The dependent variable is maternal mortality.

Results: Results are currently overwhelming. consider picking 2-3 from table one. And presenting odds rations for statistically significant predictors and surprising findings.

Introduction: First paragraph could be more succinct and shorter focusing mostly on Pakistan. Currently too wordy. Second paragraph needs to be elaborated more. We need more information on the conceptual framework(what informed it? any established theories, key associations from the prior studies mentioned in the past? Do you have a DAG? Rationale and objective of this study needs to be clearly linked.

Figure 1 is nice clear diagram

Methods: Methods section looks generally good. However see comments in abstract.

Did you perform a multistage cluster design or you performed a secondary data analysis from the survey using a nested control study design?

is there room for Flexibility in a statistical analysis plan. Won't this introduce Bias (line 111-114)

Figure 2: I am not an expert in matching cases and controls so I stand to be corrected. What is the rationale of matching cases and controls by clusters? What is the matching ratio 1 case to 5 controls or 1 case to 4 controls. What exactly is happening here? And is it statistically correct?

Results: Improve structure and clarity in results section. Try to use sub-titles. See also comments in abstract. Read how other articles presents such data.

Discussion: Consider formatting it in this way.

1. Key findings, " We assessed the socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan. We found that xxxxxxxxx

2. Similarities or lack of with existing literature on the topic

3. Limitations

4. Recommendations

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zalikha Khamis Al-Marzouqi

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2023 comment Pone-D-23-22204.docx

pone.0290492.s001.docx (12.4KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Why Mothers Continue To Die In Pakistan.docx

pone.0290492.s002.docx (20.1KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 3;20(1):e0290492. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290492.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


22 May 2024

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1: 1. The study presents the results of original research.

I am wondering this manuscript. I found publish in the medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.10.23293928; this version posted August 15, 2023.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

I am wondering this manuscript. I found publish in the medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.10.23293928; this version posted August 15, 2023.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We initially submitted the manuscript to BMG Global Health that suggested a referral to another journal, but we declined and submitted the manuscript only to PlosOne, after some revisions. We did not submit the manuscript to medRxiv or to any other journal and are surprised to find it on medRxiv as a “preprint” DOI. We have no idea how medRxiv found and placed the manuscript and referred it as “preprint” version when it has not yet been accepted by PlosOne. We confirm that the manuscript has not been published nor submitted to any other journal. Following the reviewer’s comment, we browsed the DOI version and find it different from the revised one.

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

No comment

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

No comment

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

Yes it is “The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English”

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

The ethics of experimentation and research integrity issue did not show in manuscript. If the project used the secondary data, IRB should be explained about exempt.

Response: The manuscript used publically available data of Pakistan Maternal Mortality Survey (PMMS). The authors had no role in data collection that was undertaken by National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) after obtaining the necessary ethical approvals and complying with ethical requirements of informed consent, privacy and confidentiality. We have added information under Ethical Statement. The PMMS data are available for download from: https://dhsprogram.com/methodology/survey/survey-display-552.cfm.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

No comment

Reviewer #2: Why Mothers Continue To Die In Pakistan: A Nested Case-Control Study Of Predictors Of Maternal Mortality

Summary of the Research

Maternal mortality ratio (MMR) declined in Pakistan from 276 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006-07 to 186 in 2019. Despite this decline, reasons why mothers continue to die, the inequity in the burden of maternal mortality and its predictors largely remain unknown. The in-depth analysis of Pakistan Maternal Mortality Survey 2019 was undertaken using the nested case-control design. Cases and controls were similar on access to antenatal care (ANC) and ANC provider, but differed on age, education, number of pregnancies, type of delivery, tetanus toxoid vaccination during last pregnancy, and ever using a contraceptive method. More of the cases had their last delivery by a skilled birth attendant (83% compared to 63% among controls) and delivered at the government hospital (43% compared to 33% among controls) while home delivery was relatively more common among controls (32% compared to 25% among cases). Odds of maternal death were lowest for women giving birth during age 20-29 (odds ratio – OR: 0.5; 95% CI 0.23-1.07) as compared to women in age 15-19 and those age 30-39 (OR: 1.34; 95% CI 0.61-2.95) and 40-49 (OR: 1.21; 95% CI 0.42-3.45), and among women with secondary or higher education (OR: 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.74) compared to women with no education. Women in certain sub-groups confront higher risks of maternal death. Increasing female education, preventing early and late childbearing through contraceptive use, increasing tetanus vaccination during pregnancy, improving providers’ skills, and quality of health care are required to eliminate preventable maternal deaths in Pakistan.

Areas for improvement

Title:

Tile is concise and good well expressing and reflecting the content of the study.

Response: Thank you. Reviewer #3 suggested a different title and we have followed the suggestion and changed it to “Demographic, social and health system factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan: A nested case-control study”

Abstract:

The abstract is well written, however, the authors should revise the language to improve readability.

The authors should make sure that the abstract don’t exceed 300 words.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the abstract to simplify and improve the readability. The word count is now 263.

Introduction:

The authors should write details in introduction section to tell the reader about the general information about the phenomena under study.

Response: We have further revised the Introduction and summarized the general information available on maternal mortality in Pakistan.

The authors should mention the significant of the study and identify the gap in knowledge as well.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added: “However, there remains a dearth of understanding regarding the contextual, health system, social, and biological factors that significantly influence the reduction of preventable maternal deaths in Pakistan. By identifying subgroups of women with high risk of maternal mortality, this study aims to call for concerted efforts focusing on these groups. The study also aims to pinpoint interventions that are needed to reduce preventable maternal deaths in Pakistan. In addition, it highlights the application of case-control methodology to the analysis of maternal mortality data collected in cross-sectional surveys such as Demographic and Health Surveys and Maternal Mortality Surveys.”

The authors should revise introduction section for grammar issues and language to improve readability.

Response: We have revised the text in Introduction to address the comment.

The authors should clear identify the variables of the study.

The authors should explain theoretical framework of the study.

The authors should mention the significance of the study.

The authors should make this section more clear, so readers will understand what message you wanted them to understand.

Response: Thank you for the above suggestions. We have addressed these in our revisions. The first two suggestions have been addressed under Statistical Analysis section where we have added the following:

“Operationalizing the conceptual framework shown in Figure 1, maternal death was taken as an outcome variable that was dichotomized into whether the death occurred or not (i.e., cases were maternal deaths, and controls were women who were alive and had a live birth). The proximate determinants of the outcome of maternal death are the health seeking behaviors such as seeking antenatal care (ANC); antenatal care provider; month of pregnancy at first ANC visit; receiving tetanus toxoid (TT) injection during pregnancies and comorbidities such as composite index of complications and composite symptoms. Socio-economic variables examined for their potential role in women level risk factors and health-seeking behaviors to ultimately exacerbate or reduce the risk of maternal death are region and urban/rural place of residence and educational level of women. Women level risk factors include age; parity; number of living children, ever had caesarean section; place of delivery; assistance with delivery; type of delivery and contraceptive usage. Together, these variables attenuate or escalate the risk of maternal mortality.”

Suggestion #3 and 4 are addressed in the revision of Introduction as also explained above.

Overall

Good and brief introduction section.

Material and Methods:

Clear section but The authors should revise the language to improve readability.

Response: We have revised to simplify and improve readability.

The authors should mention why they selected the design of the study clearly.

Response: We have expanded the text in Materials and Methods to provide the requested information as follows:

PMMS and other cross-sectional surveys covering maternal deaths often use verbal autopsy module to ascertain information about the deceased. Case-control design is an appropriate option to study the outcome of maternal mortality where those who died are classified as “cases” and those who survived as “controls”. The purpose of classifying the two groups on outcome, that is, maternal death in this study, is to investigate the underlying factors that distinguish the two groups.

The authors should briefly explain what is PMMS and provide the full for of this abbreviation.

Response: Information on PMMS is provided under Materials and Methods. The abbreviation of PMMS is defined when first used in the Abstract and in Introduction and also in the text.

From where they got this questionnaire.

Response: The survey was conducted by the National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) under the auspices of the Demographic and Health Survey Program. The final report of the survey with all details on sampling procedures and the questionnaires as well as data are available at: https://dhsprogram.com/methodology/survey/survey-display-552.cfm.

The authors should mention about verbal autopsy (VA) questionnaire, is it different from PMMS questionnaire.

Response: PMMS questionnaire included verbal autopsy module. Information is available at: https://dhsprogram.com/methodology/survey/survey-display-552.cfm.

The authors should mention about other ethical consideration for data control.

Response: We have expanded information under Ethical Statement.

The authors should briefly explain about Stata version 14.

Response: We have added the information.

I am not sure if there are specific criteria to include the participants, mention that please!

Response: The criteria for the participation of respondents in PMMS is described in the final report of PMMS. See https://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-FR366-Other-Final-Reports.cfm and for the study mentioned under Materials and Methods and shown in Figure 2.

Results, discussion and conclusion:

Clear results, discussion and conclusion sections. But improve grammar and language for readability.

Response: We have revised to improve readability.

References:

The authors should revise all references according to the guidelines provided.

Make sure that all intext referencing reflecting with in the references list.

Response: Thank you for suggestion, we have revised the references according to the journal referencing guidelines.

Reviewer #3: Well done for the reviewers in working with two databases to address an important global health problems. However, there are still some areas that need major revisions. Please see comments below:

Title: I feel like the title is too broad, at first sight I though this paper included demographic, social, economic, cultural factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan. I suggest using something more succinct like, "Demographic, Social and Clinical Factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan: A nested case control study"

Response: Thank you for suggesting the alternative title. We have gratefully accepted your suggestion with a minor change from “clinical” to “health system”.

Abstract: The abstract needs a lot of work, see couple suggestions below;

Background: In Parkistan, there has been a decline of maternal mortality by x% between 2006-2019. However, the MMR remains relatively high at xxxxx. This study aims to assess factors associated with MMR in Pakistan.

Methods: We used data from PMMS 2019. We employed a nested case control design. Cases were defined as.......Controls were defined as. We performed a multivariate regression with the following independent variable. The dependent variable is maternal mortality.

Results: Results are currently overwhelming. consider picking 2-3 from table one. And presenting odds rations for statistically significant predictors and surprising findings.

Response: Thank you for the suggestions. We have revised the Abstract incorporating your suggestions.

Introduction: First paragraph could be more succinct and shorter focusing mostly on Pakistan. Currently too wordy. Second paragraph needs to be elaborated more. We need more information on the conceptual framework (what informed it? any established theories, key associations from the prior studies mentioned in the past? Do you have a DAG? Rationale and objective of this study needs to be clearly linked.

Figure 1 is nice clear diagram

Response: Thank you. We have revised the Introduction and have added information on conceptual framework under Statistical Analysis on the linkages among variables identified in the framework.

We had a TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) that reviewed the study design, analysis and the results.

Methods: Methods section looks generally good. However see comments in abstract.

Did you perform a multistage cluster design or you performed a secondary data analysis from the survey using a nested control study design?

Response: We performed secondary data analysis of the survey by defining cases and controls as part of the analysis of data.

is there room for Flexibility in a statistical analysis plan. Won't this introduce Bias (line 111-114)

Response: By “flexibility”, we implied the ability to conduct analysis of “observational” data with subgroups that experience the event, that is, maternal death, and those who did not and to identify factors associated with the outcome. This does not introduce bias.

Figure 2: I am not an expert in matching cases and controls so I stand to be corrected. What is the rationale of matching cases and controls by clusters? What is the matching ratio 1 case to 5 controls or 1 case to 4 controls. What exactly is happening here? And is it statistically correct?

Response: We matched cases and controls to have both from the same region and place of residence and thus comparable on this aspect. The ratio of 1 to 4 or 1 to 5 is statistically valid. Of course, a ratio of 1 to 1 is better, but maternal death are (fortunately) less than those who gave birth and were alive. The ratio of 1 case to 5 controls provide statistically valid results.

Results: Improve structure and clarity in results section. Try to use sub-titles. See also comments in abstract. Read how other articles presents such data.

Response: Thank you for the helpful suggestions. We have summarized results under sub-titles of: (1) Profile of cases and controls and risk factors; and (2) predictors of maternal mortality

Discussion: Consider formatting it in this way.

1. Key findings, " We assessed the socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan. We found that xxxxxxxxx

2. Similarities or lack of with existing literature on the topic

3. Limitations

4. Recommendations

Response: Thank you. We have revised Discussions to incorporate suggestions.

________________________________________

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zalikha Khamis Al-Marzouqi

Reviewer #3: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0290492.s003.docx (25.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Abera Mersha

16 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-22204R1Demographic, social and health system factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan: A nested case-control studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Maqbool Ahmad,

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 31 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,

Abera Mersha, MSc.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: Well done team, all the best.

The authors addressed all changes

No more comments for them.

I wish them all the best

Reviewer #3: Abstract

This conclusion is off – how do you make such a conclusion from these results that are only looking at association and not causality?

I would suggest_

“Conclusion: This study provides factors associated with maternal mortality. Further investigation is needed on the determinants positively associated with high mortality rates.”

There is a limitation on what you can say when assessing causality or maybe you can argue that maternal deaths are rare and hence odds ratio = relative risk ratio, read up on it.

Introduction

Improved – However I would remove sections that speaks about the methodology in the introduction

There is a specific section for methodology

Methodology

Please follow the following format for clarity:

Design: Case-control design of PMMS and Surveys with Maternal Mortality data (Include years)

Setting and Population

Data Collection

Study Variable – including Primary Outcome

Type of analysis and Software

Ethical Considerations

Figure 2: Scheme of cases an 132 d controls identification and matching is a great diagram, give the explanation you gave on the rationale of different matching ratios

Results

“Multi-stage analyses included the phases of descriptive analysis and inferential analyses by applying

173 univariate and multivariate regression techniques. The proportional representation of cases versus controls

174 was similar for the matching variables of region/province of residence and place of residence (i.e. urban vs

175 rural).” - Belongs in the methodology section.

Begin like – Table shows the Number and percentage distribution (%) of cases and controls by background variables, Pakistan, 2019…………

Discussion

The discussion needs restructuring.

We assessed the socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan. We found that We Cases and controls were similar on access to antenatal care (ANC) and ANC provider but differed on age, education, number of pregnancies, type of delivery, tetanus toxoid vaccination during last pregnancy, and contraceptive usage. A higher proportion of cases had deliveries by skilled birth attendants (83% compared to 63% among controls) while home deliveries were more common among controls (32% compared to 25% among cases). Odds of maternal death were lowest among women aged 20-29 years (odds ratio – OR: 0.5; 95% CI 0.23-1.07) and those with secondary or higher education (OR: 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.74). Surprisingly, deliveries attended by skilled birth attendants were associated with higher odds of maternal death (OR: 4.07; 95% CI 2.19-7.57) compared to those who were not.

Second paragraph should speak of similarities or lack of with existing literature on the topic

Third paragraph should speak of of limitations which you already have.

Fourth paragraph should speak of Recommendations (please see comments in abstract.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zalikha Khamis Al-Marzouqi

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 3;20(1):e0290492. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290492.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


31 Jul 2024

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Response: We have revised the text in line with the comments and suggestions received.

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Response: Pakistan Maternal Mortality Survey 2019 data are in public domain and can be downloaded from the website: https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm. The survey was conducted by the National Institute of Population Studies.

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: Well done team, all the best.

The authors addressed all changes

No more comments for them.

I wish them all the best

Reviewer #3: Abstract

This conclusion is off – how do you make such a conclusion from these results that are only looking at association and not causality?

I would suggest_

“Conclusion: This study provides factors associated with maternal mortality. Further investigation is needed on the determinants positively associated with high mortality rates.”

There is a limitation on what you can say when assessing causality or maybe you can argue that maternal deaths are rare and hence odds ratio = relative risk ratio, read up on it.

Response: Thank you. We agree with the comment and suggestion and have revised the text to: “This study identifies factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan. Further investigation is needed on the determinants of high maternal mortality.”

Introduction

Improved – However I would remove sections that speaks about the methodology in the introduction

There is a specific section for methodology

Response: Thank you for the helpful suggestion. We have moved the relevant text to Methods section.

Methodology

Please follow the following format for clarity:

Design: Case-control design of PMMS and Surveys with Maternal Mortality data (Include years)

Setting and Population

Data Collection

Study Variable – including Primary Outcome

Type of analysis and Software

Ethical Considerations

Response: We have followed the suggested format and reorganized the text into the suggested sub-sections.

Figure 2: Scheme of cases and controls identification and matching is a great diagram, give the explanation you gave on the rationale of different matching ratios

Response: Added in the text of manuscript as follows (row 145-149)

There were a total of 147 maternal deaths (eligible cases) in the PMMS 2019 survey. To maximize the statistical power of analysis, inclusivity for statistical analysis purposes was considered in a way, so that the information on maximum number of cases could be utilized. In this milieu, there were 136 cases were included in the final analysis on the basis that they had at-least one cluster matched control available. As a result, there were only four clusters for whom lesser number of controls per case (i.e. less than ratio of 1:5) were available.

Results

“Multi-stage analyses included the phases of descriptive analysis and inferential analyses by applying

173 univariate and multivariate regression techniques. The proportional representation of cases versus controls

174 was similar for the matching variables of region/province of residence and place of residence (i.e. urban vs

175 rural).” - Belongs in the methodology section.

Begin like – Table shows the Number and percentage distribution (%) of cases and controls by background variables, Pakistan, 2019…………

Response: Thank you for the helpful suggestions. We have moved the text, as suggested to Methodology section.

Discussion

The discussion needs restructuring.

We assessed the socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan. We found that We Cases and controls were similar on access to antenatal care (ANC) and ANC provider but differed on age, education, number of pregnancies, type of delivery, tetanus toxoid vaccination during last pregnancy, and contraceptive usage. A higher proportion of cases had deliveries by skilled birth attendants (83% compared to 63% among controls) while home deliveries were more common among controls (32% compared to 25% among cases). Odds of maternal death were lowest among women aged 20-29 years (odds ratio – OR: 0.5; 95% CI 0.23-1.07) and those with secondary or higher education (OR: 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.74). Surprisingly, deliveries attended by skilled birth attendants were associated with higher odds of maternal death (OR: 4.07; 95% CI 2.19-7.57) compared to those who were not.

Second paragraph should speak of similarities or lack of with existing literature on the topic

Third paragraph should speak of of limitations which you already have.

Fourth paragraph should speak of Recommendations (please see comments in abstract.

Response: We have restructured the Discussion and followed these helpful recommendations.

________________________________________

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zalikha Khamis Al-Marzouqi

Reviewer #3: No

________________________________________

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

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

________________________________________

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_July 2024.docx

pone.0290492.s004.docx (24.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Muhammad Haroon Stanikzai

8 Oct 2024

PONE-D-23-22204R2Demographic, social and health system factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan: A nested case-control studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Maqbool Ahmad,

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.

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

Thank you for addressing the initial comments provided by the reviewers. Based on the revised manuscript, the reviewers have requested that some minor comments still need to be addressed. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 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,

Muhammad Haroon Stanikzai

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: All Comments had been addressed.

All the best

Reviewer #4: Dear Authors,

It is good Job. The study used nested case-control design with robust statistical analysis to better understand maternal mortality in Pakistan. I have some comments that can improve your work.

- what does your "main findings mean" merely should be stated in abstract section of the conclusion.

- The study shows sigificant association between SBAs and high MMR. Could this works for causality too? or How can the authors address limitations of drawing conclusions on the causality?

- Why pakistan still have high number of MMR despite considerable improvements.

- I see some of the section of the references are not full. Please re consider it

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Zalikha Khamis Al-Marzouqi

Reviewer #4: Yes: Eskinder Israel

**********

[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. 2025 Jan 3;20(1):e0290492. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290492.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


31 Oct 2024

Note: Responses are show in Italic.

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.

Response: We have reviewed reference list for completeness and correctness. Changes have been made to correct the title or other information. No retracted paper was (and is) in the reference list.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Response: Thank you.

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Response: Thank you.

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Response: Thank you.

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Response: Thank you.

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Response: Thank you.

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: All Comments had been addressed.

Response: Thank you.

All the best

Reviewer #4: Dear Authors,

It is good Job. The study used nested case-control design with robust statistical analysis to better understand maternal mortality in Pakistan. I have some comments that can improve your work.

Response: Thank you.

- what does your "main findings mean" merely should be stated in abstract section of the conclusion.

Response: Thank you. We have now included the main findings under Conclusions in the Abstract. Specifically, we have added: “This study identifies secondary or higher maternal education, having had tetanus injection during the last pregnancy, ever-used contraception or being in the age group of 20-29 years were factors associated with lower risk of maternal mortality. Conversely, skilled birth attendance increases the risk of maternal death in Pakistan”.

- The study shows sigificant association between SBAs and high MMR. Could this works for causality too? or How can the authors address limitations of drawing conclusions on the causality?

Response: Thank you for raising an important point. Out data and statistical technique of case-control analysis do not permit drawing causal relationship between any predictor, including delivery by skil bi9rth attendants. While not drawing causality, we discuss the relationship between delivery by skill birth attendant and risk of maternal death.

Lines 266-288 of the manuscript discuss the association between SBAs and risk of maternal mortality as follows: “However, the finding that women whose last delivery was by a skilled birth attendant had higher odds of maternal death is counterintuitive, though consistent in both PDHS 2006-07 [8] and our analysis of PMMS data. There are three explanations for this unexpected result derived from the in-depth analysis of the verbal autopsies of the deceased women identified in the PMMS [9]. First, women after having sought care from diverse types of care providers for symptoms/complications of pregnancy reached the skilled attendant with a severe complication/symptom(s) in a critical condition in many cases after shuffling between two to three facilities before reaching the final referral facility. The in-depth analysis further showed that most maternal deaths occurred at health facilities following delays in deciding to seek professional care and in reaching an appropriate health facility for care [9].In a social-cultural context with little or no birth planning and accessing care when situation is worsened, this selectivity in terms of women with a complicated pregnancy or delivery reaching late a skilled attendant, manifested in a higher risk of death. Also, women with prior history of symptoms or those requiring cesarean section are more likely to approach skilled attendant for delivery. Such a pattern is noted where an effective referral system is not operational. A study of rural areas of Balochistan and North-West Frontier Province (now renamed as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) showed a similar pattern of elevated risk of maternal mortality for women who had delivered by a skilled attendant compared to those by a family member or traditional birth attendant [11]. A similar pattern was also observed in eight urban squatter settlements of Karachi [12].

Second, it was found that skilled attendants were not adequately trained and provided a sub-optimal quality of care. The in-depth analysis shows that 36% of all maternal deaths, direct or indirect, and 91% of direct maternal deaths were due to surgical or medical misadventures [9]. Indifference by unmotivated staff, poor skills of health care providers, and lack of medicine and equipment together contributed to heavy death toll of women reaching the facility in reasonable condition [9]. Third, the finding of higher maternal mortality among women with births attended by a skilled provider is consistently reported in studies from Pakistan and the qualitative analysis of verbal autopsies indicates that women with complicated pregnancy or delivery to start with were more likely to seek care from a skilled attendant. The pathway to skilled delivery is, therefore, shaped by the prior history of symptoms exacerbating pregnancy complications leading to institutional care and delivery by a skilled attendant. In addition, the poor quality of service, including poor skills of providers contribute to higher maternal mortality for women with delivery by a skilled attendant. This noteworthy finding indicates that the emphasis on institutional deliveries and delivery by a skilled birth attendant to reduce maternal mortality is insufficient to reduce maternal mortality where norms for pregnancy care are lacking, but a necessary concomitant of complicated pregnancies. Moreover, it is imperative to ensure the quality of care and enhance the skills of health care providers to effectively manage the serious complications of women reaching the facility.”

We discuss limitations of the study in lines 266-288 of the manuscript.

- Why pakistan still have high number of MMR despite considerable improvements.

Response: Thank you for the thought-provoking question. Despite considerable improvement, Pakistan continues to experience high level of maternal mortality as compared to other countries in South Asia. One of the main reason is the growing number of women entering reproductive age while contraceptive use has been stagnated and high number of pregnancies continue to occur many of them unintended. Pregnancies of young women and unintended pregnancies are of high risk of morbidity and mortality. We discuss this aspect in Lines 336-361 with additional text in Lines 359-361 as follows: “Third, family planning should be promoted for maternal and child survival through birth spacing and prevention of unintended and high-risk pregnancies. According to the PDHS 2017-18, nearly 18% of women became pregnant six to 17 months after a live birth and 37% within 24 months. PDHS data show that the highest proportion of closely spaced pregnancies occur in the adolescent age group of 15-19 years. Compared to older women, this group also has the highest unmet need for birth spacing—one out of six women in this age bracket wants to space their pregnancies but is unable to do so.

Unmet need for family planning (FP) stems from the inability of women to access services. The Lady Health Worker (LHW) program, launched in 1994, had the mandate to provide doorstep FP services to rural women, who have higher unmet need and more unintended pregnancies than urban women. This highly acclaimed program is currently plagued with many issues, the foremost of which is a perennial shortage of contraceptive supplies. Within public health facilities, service providers do not consider offering family planning services and counselling as their responsibility. This needs to be changed through some bold decisions by the government. A major step should be mandatory provision of FP services through the public and private health networks. This has several advantages, including avoiding the hesitancy some women and men have in visiting the socially stigmatized Family Planning centers run by the Population Welfare Department. General health facility visits offer several opportunities for discussing family planning, such as during antenatal care visits, immediately after delivery, during postnatal checkups, and child immunization visits. On these occasions, couples can be encouraged to discuss their family planning needs and individually focused options can be suggested to help meet their needs. This service delivery approach would also allow men to discuss family planning with male health care providers.

The Population Council estimates that even without increasing the current coverage of skilled birth attendance; by simply meeting the 17% unmet need for family planning and thus raising current contraceptive use from 34% to 51%, Pakistan could lower maternal mortality by around 30% and save every year 4,000 maternal lives. With increasing number of women continuing to enter reproductive ages without little or no concomitant rise in modern contraceptive use, women will continue to experience high number of pregnancies that expose them to risks of maternal morbidity and mortality”.

- I see some of the section of the references are not full. Please re consider it

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have reviewed and checked references for completeness and correctness.

________________________________________

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Zalikha Khamis Al-Marzouqi

Reviewer #4: Yes: Eskinder Israel

________________________________________

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_Oct 13th 2024.docx

pone.0290492.s005.docx (24.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Muhammad Haroon Stanikzai

14 Nov 2024

Demographic, social and health system factors associated with maternal mortality in Pakistan: A nested case-control study

PONE-D-23-22204R3

Dear Dr. Maqbool Ahmad,

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,

Muhammad Haroon Stanikzai

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for submitting this important manuscript to PLOS ONE Journal. I wish you great success in your continued efforts to improve care for women in Pakistan.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: 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 #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #4: Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your good work and I wish you all the best in your future life carrier.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #4: Yes: Eskinder Israel

**********

Acceptance letter

Muhammad Haroon Stanikzai

18 Dec 2024

PONE-D-23-22204R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Maqbool Ahmad,

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

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

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

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

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

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

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Muhammad Haroon Stanikzai

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2023 comment Pone-D-23-22204.docx

    pone.0290492.s001.docx (12.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Why Mothers Continue To Die In Pakistan.docx

    pone.0290492.s002.docx (20.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0290492.s003.docx (25.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_July 2024.docx

    pone.0290492.s004.docx (24.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_Oct 13th 2024.docx

    pone.0290492.s005.docx (24.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES