Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2025 Dec 11;5(12):e0005622. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005622

Post-discharge mortality in suspected pediatric sepsis: Insights from rural and urban healthcare settings in Rwanda

Christian Umuhoza 1,2,*,#, Anneka Hooft 3,#, Cherri Zhang 4, Jessica Trawin 4, Cynthia Mfuranziza 5, Emmanuel Uwiragiye 6, Vuong Nguyen 4, Aaron Kornblith 3, Nathan Kenya Mugisha 7, J Mark Ansermino 4, Matthew O Wiens 4,7,8,*
Editor: Julia Robinson9
PMCID: PMC12697939  PMID: 41379776

Abstract

Post-discharge death is a key contributor to pediatric mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. To address this period’s morbidity and mortality, evidence is needed to inform resource prioritization and policy development. No studies have been conducted in Rwanda, limiting understanding of post-discharge mortality. This study aimed to determine the incidence of and risk factors for post-discharge mortality among children under five admitted with suspected sepsis in Rwanda’s rural and urban healthcare settings. We conducted a prospective, epidemiologic cohort study of post-discharge mortality in children ages 0–60 months admitted for suspected or confirmed infection in two Rwandan hospitals, one rural (Ruhengeri) and one urban (Kigali), from May 2022 to February 2023. We collected clinical, laboratory, and sociodemographic data on admission and follow-up vital statistics at 2-, 4-, and 6-months post-discharge. Of 1218 children enrolled, 115 (9.4%) died, with half in-hospital (n = 57, 4.7%) and half post-discharge (n = 58, 4.7%). Post-discharge mortality was lower in the 6–60-month cohort (n = 30, 3.5%) than in the 0–6-month cohort (10%) and higher in Kigali (n = 37, 10.3%) vs. Ruhengeri (n = 21, 2.7%). Median time to post-discharge death was 38 days (IQR: 16-97.5) in the 0–6-month cohort and 33 days (IQR: 12–76) in the 6–60-month cohort. In the 0–6 months’ cohort, malnutrition (weight-for-age z-score < -3) increased the odds of post-discharge death (aOR 3.31, 95% CI 1.28-8.04), while higher maternal education was protective (aOR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.85). Significant factors in the 6–60-month cohort included an abnormal Blantyre Coma Scale (aOR 3.28, 95% CI 1.47-7.34), travel time to care >;1 hour (aOR 3.54, 95% CI 1.26-9.93), and referral for higher care (aOR 4.13, 95% CI 1.05-16.27). Children aged <2 months within the 0–6 month cohort exhibited the highest cumulative mortality risk. Post-discharge mortality among Rwandan children remains a challenge, requiring interventions like caregiver counselling, follow-up visits, and community health worker monitoring to reduce mortality rates.

Introduction

Pediatric mortality following hospital discharge is often an overlooked aspect of child health in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [1,2]. Despite significant decreases in in-hospital mortality rates in pediatric patients in SSA, the early post-discharge period is an especially vulnerable time marked by an increased risk of death, primarily within the first six months [35]. An in-depth understanding of the many complex factors contributing to pediatric post-discharge mortality is a critical first step in the design and implementation of effective targeted interventions to reduce the burden of sepsis and improve outcomes in low-resource settings.

Existing research from low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings has provided valuable insights into the epidemiology and risk factors associated with post-discharge mortality in children. The multi-county Child Health and Mortality Prevention Surveillance Network (CHAIN) study evaluated the causal structure of post-discharge mortality, outlining its complex nature, as it pertains to social, nutritional, and illness-related vulnerability, and identified the importance of malnutrition in post-discharge mortality [6]. In Uganda, the Smart Discharges studies have emphasized that clinical, socioeconomic, behavioral, and lab-based risk factors present on admission can be used for risk stratification of children to inform a more personalized approach to post-discharge care [5,7]. These risk factors have been used to create predictive algorithms to identify children at the highest risk of post-discharge death, in whom low-cost interventions based on this individual risk can be applied to reduce mortality [5,8].

Like most of sub-Saharan Africa, Rwanda has seen dramatic reductions in child mortality, likely the cumulative result of several different, national-level interventional programs [9]. These include interventions such as the introduction of community health insurance, performance-based pay for providers [10], geographical accessibility improvements [11], health system strengthening partnerships [12], nurse mentorship programs [13], community health workers programs [14], and data-driven quality improvement initiatives [15]. Despite a growing body of evidence describing the risks and burden of post-discharge death in children treated for infections [3], its epidemiology in Rwanda has not yet been evaluated.

While Rwanda has made progress in reducing under-five mortality [16], little is known about what happens to children after hospital discharge. Post-discharge deaths are not routinely tracked, and no prospective data exist in Rwanda to guide follow-up care. This study addresses that gap by focusing on children hospitalized with suspected sepsis—a group known to be at high risk. With the complex interplay of health systems, population-, and individual-level risk factors, Rwanda provides a unique setting for investigating post-discharge mortality among children [14]. Given Rwanda’s existing healthcare infrastructure improvements, a better understanding of disparities in post-discharge mortality may encourage additional system-level improvements. This study aimed to investigate the epidemiology of post-discharge mortality in children admitted with suspected sepsis in Rwanda and to identify the key risk factors to inform both clinical practice and health policy, and ultimately improve child survival after discharge.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

This prospective cohort study was conducted at two Rwandan hospitals. Situated in the Northern Province, Ruhengeri Referral Hospital operates as the primary referral center and the only district hospital in Musanze District, serving a largely rural population with a catchment area nearing 500,000 people. The hospital has four total ICU beds and no pediatric-specific ICU capacity. The second, the University Teaching Hospital of Kigali (CHUK), located in Nyarugenge District, Kigali City, is the largest hospital in the country and serves as Rwanda’s primary referral center, with a capacity of 483 beds. It also serves as a teaching hospital and center for clinical research for multiple medical schools and provides technical assistance to the surrounding district hospitals.

Participant recruitment and selection criteria

We prospectively enrolled a cohort of children ages 0–60 months between May 2022 and February 2023. These groups were stratified into 0–6 months and 0–60 months sub-cohorts, given prior variability in risk predictors and model development specific to these age groups, informed by previous studies [5,8]. Inclusion criteria included: any child within this age group admitted with suspected or confirmed infection, as assessed by the treating clinician. This was left to the discretion of the individual clinician and included any child being admitted with a diagnosis of at least one viral, bacterial, or parasitic infection based on clinical (e.g., tachypnea, hypoxia, fever with clinical diagnosis of pneumonia) or laboratory (e.g., rapid diagnostic test positive confirming diagnosis of malaria) criteria. Our previous research in similar settings in Uganda demonstrated that 90% of children enrolled using these same criteria for admission, with a confirmed or suspected infection based on the treating clinician’s assessment, met the International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria for sepsis [5,17]. We excluded children living outside the hospital service area, admitted for short-term observation (less than 24 h), or treated for trauma or non-infectious illness. [5,17]. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants’ parents or legal guardians. Children whose parents or caregivers refused to participate were excluded from the study.

Data collection procedures

Data were collected at admission, discharge, and at 2-, 4-, and 6-months post-discharge. A research nurse collected information on clinical history and evaluation, laboratory findings, and sociodemographic characteristics, which mirrored the methodologies used in a similar study conducted in Uganda, ensuring consistency and comparability across studies [5]. All data collection instruments are accessible via the Smart Discharges study Dataverse [18]. Data were gathered directly at the point of care using encrypted study tablets and subsequently uploaded to a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system [19]. We used a combination of telephone interviews and home visits by research field officers for follow-up visits. These follow-ups focused on vital status, health-seeking behaviors, and any readmissions.

Variables and measurements

Clinical information collected included vital signs, anthropometric measurements to determine malnutrition status, basic laboratory tests (such as glucose levels, malaria, and HIV rapid diagnostic tests [RDTs], hematocrit, and lactate), observed clinical signs and symptoms, comorbidities, and healthcare history, including any prior hospital admissions. We evaluated nutritional status using weight-for-age z-scores based on the World Health Organization (WHO) growth standards [20]. Sociodemographic data included maternal and household details, such as mother’s age, education level, HIV status, household size, use of bed nets, proximity to the health facility, and availability of clean drinking water. Information on the child’s sex was obtained from medical records. At discharge, the study nurses recorded the discharge status (categorized as routine discharge, referral for higher-level care, or unplanned discharge) and feeding status, which were subjectively assessed as feeding well or poorly. Discharge diagnoses were also retrieved from medical records. Field officers contacted caregivers by telephone at 2-, 4-, and 6-months post-discharge to assess the child’s vital status, any instances of seeking medical care after leaving the hospital, and details of any readmissions to any health facility, as reported by the caregiver. In cases where contact was lost, we conducted in-person visits to the child’s home in the community to gather this information. Although we did include the WHO 2022 standard verbal autopsy tool questions (adapted for Rwanda) [21] for any participants who died following hospital discharge, in-depth verbal autopsy analysis was outside the scope of this study.

Sample size was calculated assuming a rate of post-discharge death of approximately 8%. A sample size of 1000 would provide a ~ 2% margin of error for the outcome of post-discharge death with approximately 80% power and p = 0.05.

Statistical analysis

We performed descriptive statistics to characterize baseline clinical, social/maternal, and discharge variables, stratified by age cohort. We used medians with interquartile ranges for continuous variables and counts with percentages for categorical variables. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine risk factors for post-discharge mortality by estimating the odds ratios adjusted for age, sex, and enrollment site. Post-discharge mortality was treated as a binary outcome, and the enrollment site was included as a fixed effect because only two sites were included. We also examined the secondary outcome, readmission post-discharge, using descriptive statistics. We estimated the cumulative hazard for mortality and readmission after discharge with Kaplan-Meier survival curves at four predefined age strata (0– < 2 months, 2–6 months, > 6–24 months, and >24–60 months). These age strata were chosen to reflect developmental and immunological stages, align with prior pediatric sepsis literature, and enable comparison with similar studies. We had minimal missing data and addressed these using k-nearest neighbor imputation to ensure the robustness and validity of the results. We conducted all statistical analyses using Stata/MP version 15.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA), R version 4.1.3, and RStudio version 2022.2.3 (RStudio, Boston, MA, USA).

Ethical considerations

Several institutional review boards approved the study: The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) on October 8, 2021 (No. 21–34663); the University of British Columbia (UBC) on January 28, 2022 (No. H21-02795), University of Rwanda on December 30, 2021 (No. 411), and University Teaching Hospital of Kigali on January 14, 2022 (No. 005). Informed consent was obtained from the parents or legal guardians of all participants in Kinyarwanda. This manuscript adheres to the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement for cohort studies [22].

Inclusivity in global research

Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information (S1 Checklist).

Results

We enrolled 1,218 children over the 9-month study period, of whom 1,161 survived to hospital discharge and 1,127 completed follow-up at 6 months post-discharge. There were 115 (9.4%) deaths, evenly split between in-hospital (n = 57, 4.7%) and the post-discharge period (n = 58, 4.7%) (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Study flowchart stratified by age group.

Fig 1

A flow diagram summarizing participant enrollment, follow-up completion, and outcome ascertainment is presented in Fig 1. The median age of the participants was 13.5 months (IQR 6.1-24.7), and 60% of the cohort was male (n = 676) (S1 Table). Severe malnutrition was common, with 9.1% (n = 103) having a weight-for-age z-score (WAZ) below -3, although this differed significantly between the 0–6-month and 6–60-month age groups (S1 Table and Table 1). Fewer than half of the children (44.4%, n = 500) had a measured fever on presentation (temperature > 37.5 °C), while 18% (n = 208) had measured hypothermia (temperature <36.5 °C). An abnormal Blantyre Coma Scale (BCS) score (≤4) indicating impaired consciousness was observed in 17.2% of patients (n = 194). Only 1.5% (n = 17) were malaria positive, and 0.3% (n = 3) tested positive for HIV. Anemia, defined as a Hemoglobin level <11 g/dL, was present in 36.8% (n = 415) (S1 Table). By disposition, 97.3% of all admitted children were routinely discharged, 1.9% and 0.8% referred to higher care and left against medical advice, respectively (S1 Table).

Table 1. Cohort characteristics, disposition, and adjusted odds ratios for post-discharge death, stratified by ages 0-6 months and ages 6-60 months.

0m to 6m (n = 274) 6m to 60m (n = 853)
Variable N (%)/Median (IQR) aOR** (95% CI) N (%)/Median (IQR) aOR** (95% CI)
Demographics
Site, n (%)
Kigali 110 (40.2) reference 251 (29.4) reference
Ruhengeri 164 (59.9) 0.33 (0.15-0.75) 602 (70.6) 0.21 (0.10-0.46)
Sex, n (%)
Female 112 (40.9) reference 339 (39.7) reference
Male 162 (59.1) 0.73 (0.33-1.63) 514 (60.3) 0.87 (0.41-1.86)
Age, months* 1.4 (0.6-3.6) 0.91 (0.72-1.14) 17.9 (11.3-29.8) 0.98 (0.95-1.01)
Admission anthropometry
MUAC (mm)* 1 120 (104-140) 0.98 (0.96-1.00) 150 (140-160) 0.98 (0.97-1.00)
<110/ < 115 83 (30.3) 2.27 (0.65-7.88) 26 (3.1) 2.69 (0.70-10.31)
110-120/115-125 70 (25.6) 3.05 (1.14-8.16) 42 (4.9) 2.48 (0.68-9.05)
>120/ > 125 121 (44.2) reference 785 (92.0) reference
Weight for age z-score -0.9 (-2.2-0.02) 0.75 (0.62-0.90) -0.6 (-1.6-0.3) 0.61 (0.50-0.74)
<-3 47 (17.2) 3.21 (1.28-8.04) 56 (6.6) 6.52 (2.63-16.16)
-3 to -2 24 (8.8) 2.22 (0.64-7.66) 92 (10.8) 3.17 (1.17-8.61)
>-2 203 (74.1) reference 705 (82.7) reference
Admission clinical assessment
SpO2, %* 95 (88-98) 0.97 (0.92-1.02) 94 (88-97) 0.99 (0.95-1.04)
Heart rate 150 (137-162) 1.02 (1.00-1.04) 140 (125-154) 0.99 (0.98-1.01)
Respiratory rate* 46 (40-55) 1.01 (0.98-1.04) 40 (34-46) 1.01 (0.98-1.05)
Temperature* 36.9 (36.5-37.9) 37.4 (36.7-38.2)
< 36.5 63 (23.0) 1.01 (0.38-2.71) 145 (17.0) 0.40 (0.09-1.82)
36.5-37.5 123 (44.9) reference 296 (34.7) Reference
>37.5 88 (32.1) 0.53 (0.20-1.43) 412 (48.3) 0.83 (0.38-1.80)
Abnormal BCS 3 * 74 (27.0) 1.05 (0.44-2.54) 120 (14.1) 3.28 (1.47-7.34)
HIV positive* 1 (0.4) 2 (0.2) 11.42 (0.67-194.83)
Positive malaria test 3 (1.1) 14 (1.6)
Hemoglobin, g/dl* 12 (10.7-13.5) 0.83 (0.71-0.97) 11.3 (10.2-12) 0.84 (0.71-1.00)
No anemia:
≥11g/dL
192 (70.1) reference 520 (61.0) reference
Anemia: < 11g/dL 82 (29.9) 1.91 (0.83-4.38) 333 (39.0) 2.04 (0.93-4.48)
Referral 241 (88.0) 6.41 (0.82-50.11) 769 (90.2) 1.44 (0.46-4.48)
Prior antibiotic use 90 (32.9) 2.13 (0.73-6.22) 333 (39.0) 1.50 (0.58-3.86)
Prior antimalarial use 4 (1.5) 2.48 (0.23-26.81) 29 (3.4) 1.78 (0.48-6.67)
Respiratory distress 66 (24.1) 1.20 (0.49-2.92) 162 (19.0) 1.62 (0.72-3.62)
Maternal and Social Characteristics
Time to reach hospital*
<30m 112 (40.9) reference 341 (40.0) reference
30 min - 1h 88 (32.1) 1.49 (0.55-4.09) 350 (41.0) 1.36 (0.48-3.90)
>1h 74 (27.0) 0.90 (0.31-2.63) 162 (19.0) 3.54 (1.26-9.93)
Water source*
Municipal water/tap 182 (66.4) reference 533 (62.5) reference
Other sources 92 (33.6) 0.84 (0.36-1.96) 320 (37.5) 2.01 (0.94-4.32)
Boil/disinfect/filter water* 94 (34.3) 0.21 (0.06-0.72) 347 (40.7) 0.74 (0.34-1.62)
Maternal education 2
No school or ≤P3 33 (12.0) reference 118 (13.8) reference
P4 to P6 114 (41.6) 0.47 (0.17-1.31) 343 (40.2) 0.41 (0.15-1.09)
S1 to S6 103 (37.6) 0.10 (0.03-0.40) 325 (38.1) 0.38 (0.14-1.02)
> S6 23 (8.4) 0.15 (0.03-0.83) 65 (7.6) 0.09 (0.01-0.76)
Discharge Characteristics
Discharge status
Routine discharge 264 (96.4) reference 833 (97.7) reference
Referred to higher
level of care
5 (1.8) 1.38 (0.14-13.49) 16 (1.9) 4.13 (1.05-16.27)
Unplanned
discharge
5 (1.8) 2.40 (0.24-24.39) 4 (0.5)
Length of stay 6 (3-9) 1.04 (1.01-1.08) 4 (2-7) 1.08 (1.05-1.12)
Variables collected only for 0–6-month
Fontanelle* 5 (1.8) 1.73 (0.17-17.19)
Neonatal jaundice* 15 (5.5) 2.42 (0.63-9.23)
Sucking well when breastfeeding* 117 (42.7) 0.32 (0.13-0.81)
Duration of present illness*
<48h 134 (48.9) reference
48h-7d 104 (38.0) 2.13 (0.78-5.84)
>7d 36 (13.1) 3.57 (1.05-12.18)

* Variables used previously in Smart Discharge prediction models; 1small number represents cutoff for under 6 months; 2Three participants reported unknown level of education.

3 BCS ≤ 4 was considered abnormal.

**aORs were derived from logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, and enrolment site.

Abbreviations: aOR = adjusted odds ratio; IQR = interquartile range; BCS = Blantyre Coma scale; HIV = human immunodeficiency virus; SpO2 = oxygen saturation.

Characteristics of all enrolled children are detailed in S1 Table, and the characteristics of the two primary age categories are described in Table 1.

Post-discharge mortality

The overall rate of post-discharge mortality among those discharged alive was 5.2% (n = 58), with a higher cumulative mortality hazard among younger children (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Hazard curves for post-discharge mortality, stratified by age.

Fig 2

Post-discharge deaths occurred at a median of 38 days (IQR 16-97.5) and 33 days (IQR 12–76) in the 0–6-and 6–60 months’ groups, respectively, with most deaths occurring in the hospital (57.1% [n = 16] and 70.0% [n = 21], respectively) (Table 2).

Table 2. Secondary endpoint and characteristics of post-discharge deaths.

Outcome 0m to 6m (n = 274) 6m to 60m (n = 853) Total (N = 1127)
N (%)/Median (IQR)*
Readmission
Never 228 (83.2) 686 (80.4) 914 (81.1)
Once 36 (13.2) 112 (13.1) 148 (13.1)
Twice 8 (2.9) 35 (4.1) 43 (3.8)
More than twice 2 (0.7) 20 (2.3) 22 (2.0)
Number of days from discharge to 1st readmission 45 (8-125) 53 (25-98) 53 (24-108)
Number of days from discharge to death 38 (16-97.5) 33 (12-76) 29 (16-90)
Location of death
At home 8 (28.6) 8 (26.7) 16 (27.6)
In-transit 4 (14.3) 1 (3.3) 5 (8.6)
In hospital 16 (57.1) 21 (70.0) 37 (63.8)

*IQR = interquartile range.

For the 0–6 months’ group, a WAZ below -3 (aOR 3.31, 95% CI 1.28-8.04) was associated with increased risk of mortality, while higher maternal education (aOR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.85) and use of clean drinking water (aOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.72) were protective (Table 1). In the 6–60 months’ group, a WAZ below -3 was associated with significantly increased risk of mortality (aOR 6.52, 95% CI 2.63-16.16), along with an abnormal coma score (aOR 3.28, 95% CI 1.47-7.34), travel time over 1 hour to a healthcare facility (aOR 3.54, 95% CI 1.26-9.93), and the need for referral to higher care (aOR 4.13, 95% CI 1.05-16.27). Higher maternal education was also protective in the 6–60 months’ group, reducing mortality risk (aOR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.76) (Table 1).

Post-discharge readmission

The rate of post-discharge readmission was 18.9% (n = 213), with 5.8% (n = 65) of children having multiple readmissions at the same facility or other institutions, as reported by caregivers (Table 2). The median time to first readmission was 45 days (IQR 8–125) and 53 days (IQR 25–98) for the 0–6 and 6–60 month groups, respectively. Unlike post-discharge mortality, readmission was not significantly affected by age, although results were trending toward those younger than 2 months having a lower risk of readmission (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Hazard curves for first readmission, stratified by age.

Fig 3

Discussion

In our prospective observational study of children under five admitted with suspected or confirmed infections in Rwanda, nearly 1 in 20 children died after discharge, similar to the rate of mortality during the index hospital admission. We found key clinical and socio-behavioral factors are associated with higher odds of post-discharge mortality, including, for both age groups, severe malnutrition (WAZ < -3); and, for children aged 6–60 months, malnutrition, abnormal coma scores, long travel times to healthcare, and the need for referral to higher-level of care. Infants aged < 2 months had the highest risk of death.

These results, as well as the risk factors identified, are largely in line with previous studies conducted in Uganda and elsewhere in East Africa [13]. The adverse health effects of malnutrition are well known and include reduced immune competence. [23,24], and deficiencies in macro- and micronutrients [25,26], leading to a cycle of recurrent infections and deteriorating nutritional status, which further increases the risk of post-discharge mortality [27]. We also found higher post-discharge mortality rates in urban Kigali (9%) than in rural Ruhengeri (3%), in contrast to the typical rural-urban health disparity in many LMICs, where patients in rural areas typically fare worse due to limited healthcare access and resources [28]. We hypothesize that elevated mortality rates in Kigali are likely due to CHUK’s role as a tertiary care hospital admitting the most critically ill pediatric patients nationwide, including referrals of severe and complex cases from Ruhengeri, which does not have ICU capacity. Unfortunately, baseline mortality rates, particularly post-discharge, were not routinely tracked before our study and are unavailable for comparison. Future exploration of differences among hospital sites’ pediatric volume and acuity levels may be valuable for understanding health systems and resource allocation.

Our observation of elevated post-discharge mortality, particularly among young infants and severely malnourished children, aligns with evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies from Uganda [5] and Bangladesh [29] have identified these vulnerabilities as predictors of mortality after discharge and emphasize the need for ongoing close follow-up of these children. A systematic review across LMIC settings [3]confirms that gaps in post-discharge follow-up care contribute to this increased risk [3]. These findings highlight that inadequate post-discharge health surveillance within resource-constrained health systems may contribute to poor outcomes in high-risk children, emphasizing the need for strategies to improve continuity of care [5].

Rwanda has already implemented programs to improve child health. It is one of the few countries in sub-Saharan Africa to have achieved the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) related to under-5 mortality [30]. With several key health system measures already well established in Rwanda, simple models to identify the “at-risk” child could be leveraged towards practical solutions to address the high post-discharge mortality rates [31]. These include programs such as the well-established Community Health Worker (CHW) program for follow-up care [32], “Mutuelle de Santé,” a community-based health insurance program, which lowers financial barriers to potentially improve access to post-discharge services [33], a unified Health Management Information System (HMIS) to facilitate patient tracking and widespread integration of risk-based prediction models [34], and the Mentoring and Enhanced Supervision at Health Centers (MESH) for healthcare providers that could be used for training and implementation of system-wide post-discharge care and education packages [35]. These systems argue that more immediate implementation of discharge education and community-based interventions may substantially affect outcomes [3638]. Other public health campaigns and community-based programs, increased access to quality education, nutritional supplementation, expanded access to healthcare, and improved socioeconomic conditions, would also help reduce post-discharge and overall child mortality in Rwanda [39].

This study is the first in Rwanda to examine post-discharge outcomes in pediatric sepsis prospectively. By identifying key risk factors—including age, nutrition, and social vulnerability—we provide locally relevant evidence that may be used to guide discharge planning and targeted follow-up. These findings have practical implications for clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers working to strengthen continuity of care and reduce preventable deaths after hospital discharge.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include a small sample from only two hospitals, potentially limiting its generalizability to other regions in Rwanda or similar settings, and a six-month observation period, possibly missing longer-term effects. The primary data collection method and interviews may have introduced recall bias and inaccuracies. Despite this, the study provided detailed information on the severity of the children’s conditions and comorbidities. The study did not fully explore all socioeconomic and environmental factors, healthcare quality, disease severity, concurrent illnesses, genetic influences, and healthcare-seeking behaviors affecting post-discharge mortality. We recognize the absence of a systematic approach to tracking diagnoses during readmissions as a limitation of our study. Future research should address these limitations by using a larger, more diverse sample, extending the follow-up period, and conducting a comprehensive analysis of the relevant factors.

Conclusions

This study highlights that nearly half of all deaths among children hospitalized with suspected sepsis in Rwanda occur after discharge, with the highest risks seen in infants under 6 months, severely malnourished children, and those from socioeconomically vulnerable backgrounds. These findings call for urgent action to strengthen post-discharge follow-up and interventions, especially during the critical first 30–45 days. Examples of high-impact actions that can be taken at the time of hospital discharge may include routine incorporation of nutritional assessments and linkage to malnutrition programs, structured follow-up protocols for vulnerable populations (e.g., neurologically impaired, infants under 6 months), and coordination of subsequent visits with community-based health centers, particularly for patients living long distances from or with difficulty access to referral hospitals.

Potential strategies to reduce this burden are multifactorial and require a coordinated effort by facility and community health workers, policy makers, and non-governmental organizations. Specific needs include (i) the development and deployment of risk models to identify high risk children, (ii) the incorporation of recommendations on scheduled follow-up visits during the early post-discharge period among vulnerable children into national clinical guidelines, and (iii) new multilateral partnerships to develop a national strategy to address the facility to community transition of care for children following discharge to reduce the high burden of post-discharge mortality and to offer a model of care for similar resource-limited settings. This study also calls for more longitudinal research to identify additional factors influencing post-discharge mortality and the development of interventions and implementation strategies for use in low-resource, real-world settings.

The findings underscore the need for a call for action to strengthen health systems in Rwanda and similar sub-Saharan African contexts. Key priorities include integrating discharge planning protocols, providing early follow-up for high-risk pediatric patients, and enhancing community health worker involvement in post-discharge monitoring. Together with broader socioeconomic initiatives, these measures can reduce preventable mortality and improve pediatric survival rates after discharge.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. Supporting Information.

Inclusivity in global research.

(PDF)

pgph.0005622.s001.pdf (185.9KB, pdf)
S1 Table. Supplementary Table 1.

Overall demographics and cohort characteristics.

(DOCX)

pgph.0005622.s002.docx (18.6KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge all past and present members of the Smart Discharges Research program for their efforts in data collection, administration, logistics support, and all study activities, including but not limited to: Godefroid Rucinga, Esperance Umulisa, Didas Mugambinumwe, Jeanne d’Arc Mazimpaka, Claudine Uwingabiye, Theogene Bizimungu, Juliette Unyuzumutima, Peter Lewis, and Martina Knappett.

Data Availability

This study involves sensitive clinical data from pediatric patients collected across multiple sites, including Rwanda. The following materials have been made openly available through the Sepsis CoLab Dataverse repository on Borealis: the study protocol, informed consent forms, case report forms, data dictionary, and metadata schema. These can be accessed at the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/NTNTZX. The primary de-identified dataset is available to qualified researchers upon request. Requests must include a description of the intended use and will be reviewed by the Sepsis CoLab Data Governance Committee and the original investigators. This process is designed to ensure compliance with participant consent, local site agreements, and ethical considerations specific to pediatric populations. All requests should be submitted via email to: Email: sepsiscolab@bcchr.ca.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by an Early Career Award from the Thrasher Research Fund (to AH), the University of British Columbia (to MW), and the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Emergency Medicine Global Health Section (to AH). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Wiens MO, Pawluk S, Kissoon N, Kumbakumba E, Ansermino JM, Singer J, et al. Pediatric post-discharge mortality in resource poor countries: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Nemetchek B, English L, Kissoon N, Ansermino JM, Moschovis PP, Kabakyenga J, et al. Paediatric postdischarge mortality in developing countries: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(12):e023445. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Knappett M, Nguyen V, Chaudhry M, Trawin J, Kabakyenga J, Kumbakumba E, et al. Pediatric post-discharge mortality in resource-poor countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;67:102380. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Menon K, Schlapbach LJ, Akech S, Argent A, Biban P, Carrol ED, et al. Criteria for Pediatric Sepsis-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(1):21–36. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005294 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wiens MO, Bone JN, Kumbakumba E, Businge S, Tagoola A, Sherine SO, et al. Mortality after hospital discharge among children younger than 5 years admitted with suspected sepsis in Uganda: a prospective, multisite, observational cohort study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2023;7(8):555–66. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(23)00052-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bassat Q, Blau DM, Ogbuanu IU, Samura S, Kaluma E, Bassey I-A, et al. Causes of Death Among Infants and Children in the Child Health and Mortality Prevention Surveillance (CHAMPS) Network. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(7):e2322494. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.22494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wiens MO, Kissoon N, Kabakyenga J. Smart Hospital Discharges to Address a Neglected Epidemic in Sepsis in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(3):213–4. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.4519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wiens MO, Nguyen V, Bone JN, Kumbakumba E, Businge S, Tagoola A, et al. Prediction models for post-discharge mortality among under-five children with suspected sepsis in Uganda: A multicohort analysis. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024;4(4):e0003050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sayinzoga F, Bijlmakers L. Drivers of improved health sector performance in Rwanda: a qualitative view from within. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:123. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1351-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Logie DE, Rowson M, Ndagije F. Innovations in Rwanda’s health system: looking to the future. Lancet. 2008;372(9634):256–61. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60962-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Huerta Munoz U, Källestål C. Geographical accessibility and spatial coverage modeling of the primary health care network in the Western Province of Rwanda. Int J Health Geogr. 2012;11:40. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-11-40 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Drobac PC, Basinga P, Condo J, Farmer PE, Finnegan KE, Hamon JK, et al. Comprehensive and integrated district health systems strengthening: the Rwanda Population Health Implementation and Training (PHIT) Partnership. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(S2). doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-s2-s5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Anatole M, Magge H, Redditt V, Karamaga A, Niyonzima S, Drobac P, et al. Nurse mentorship to improve the quality of health care delivery in rural Rwanda. Nurs Outlook. 2013;61(3):137–44. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2012.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Abbott P, Sapsford R, Binagwaho A. Learning from Success: How Rwanda Achieved the Millennium Development Goals for Health. World Development. 2017;92:103–16. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wagenaar BH, Hirschhorn LR, Henley C, Gremu A, Sindano N, Chilengi R, et al. Data-driven quality improvement in low-and middle-income country health systems: lessons from seven years of implementation experience across Mozambique, Rwanda, and Zambia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(Suppl 3):830. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2661-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. CME Info - Child Mortality Estimates. 2023. Accessed 5 April 2025. https://childmortality.org/all-cause-mortality/data?refArea=RWA
  • 17.Wiens MO, Larson CP, Kumbakumba E, Kissoon N, Ansermino JM, Singer J, et al. Application of Sepsis Definitions to Pediatric Patients Admitted With Suspected Infections in Uganda. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2016;17(5):400–5. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Smart Discharges to improve post-discharge health outcomes in children in Rwanda - Smart Discharges - Study Protocols & Supplementary Materials. . Accessed 1 November 2024. https://borealisdata.ca/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.5683/SP3/NTNTZX
  • 19.Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. WHO Child Growth Standards based on length/height, weight and age. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 2006;450:76–85. 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.tb02378.x 16817681 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 21.2022 WHO Verbal Autopsy instrument. Accessed 22 August 2025. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/2022-who-verbal-autopsy-instrument
  • 22.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85(11):867–72. doi: 10.2471/blt.07.045120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Jones KD, Thitiri J, Ngari M, Berkley JA. Childhood malnutrition: toward an understanding of infections, inflammation, and antimicrobials. Food Nutr Bull. 2014;35(2 Suppl):S64-70. doi: 10.1177/15648265140352S110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rytter MJH, Kolte L, Briend A, Friis H, Christensen VB. The immune system in children with malnutrition--a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105017. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Elmadfa I, Meyer AL. The Role of the Status of Selected Micronutrients in Shaping the Immune Function. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets. 2019;19(8):1100–15. doi: 10.2174/1871530319666190529101816 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gombart AF, Pierre A, Maggini S. A Review of Micronutrients and the Immune System-Working in Harmony to Reduce the Risk of Infection. Nutrients. 2020;12(1):236. doi: 10.3390/nu12010236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tam E, Keats EC, Rind F, Das JK, Bhutta AZA. Micronutrient Supplementation and Fortification Interventions on Health and Development Outcomes among Children Under-Five in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2020;12(2):289. doi: 10.3390/nu12020289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sidze EM, Wekesah FM, Kisia L, Abajobir A. Inequalities in Access and Utilization of Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Services in sub-Saharan Africa: A Special Focus on Urban Settings. Matern Child Health J. 2022;26(2):250–79. doi: 10.1007/s10995-021-03250-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Chisti MJ, Graham SM, Duke T, Ahmed T, Faruque ASG, Ashraf H, et al. Post-discharge mortality in children with severe malnutrition and pneumonia in Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nyandekwe M, Kakoma JB, Nzayirambaho M. The health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 2015: Rwanda performance and contributing factors. Pan Afr Med J. 2018;31:56. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2018.31.56.11018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hooft A, Kornblith AE, Umuhoza C, Trawin J, Mfuranziza CG, Uwiragiye E, et al. Validation of a risk-prediction model for pediatric post-discharge mortality at two hospitals in Rwanda. 2024. 10.5683/SP3/JV4SOA [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 32.Haver J, Brieger W, Zoungrana J, Ansari N, Kagoma J. Experiences engaging community health workers to provide maternal and newborn health services: implementation of four programs. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;130 Suppl 2:S32-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Makaka A, Breen S, Binagwaho A. Universal health coverage in Rwanda: a report of innovations to increase enrolment in community-based health insurance. The Lancet. 2012;380:S7. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60293-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Amoroso CL, Nisingizwe MP, Rouleau D, Thomson DR, Kagabo DM, Bucyana T, et al. Next wave of interventions to reduce under-five mortality in Rwanda: a cross-sectional analysis of demographic and health survey data. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s12887-018-0997-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Manzi A, Mugunga JC, Iyer HS, Magge H, Nkikabahizi F, Hirschhorn LR. Economic evaluation of a mentorship and enhanced supervision program to improve quality of integrated management of childhood illness care in rural Rwanda. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194187. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pratley P. Associations between quantitative measures of women’s empowerment and access to care and health status for mothers and their children: A systematic review of evidence from the developing world. Soc Sci Med. 2016;169:119–31. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Karra M, Fink G, Canning D. Facility distance and child mortality: a multi-country study of health facility access, service utilization, and child health outcomes. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(3):817–26. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Spatial Accessibility Of Primary Healthcare In Rural Population: A Review. IJPHCS. 2018;5(6). doi: 10.32827/ijphcs.5.6.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Niragire F, Achia TNO, Lyambabaje A, Ntaganira J. Child mortality inequalities across Rwanda districts: a geoadditive continuous-time survival analysis. Geospat Health. 2017;12(1):450. doi: 10.4081/gh.2017.450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005622.r001

Decision Letter 0

Jianhong Zhou

27 Mar 2025

PGPH-D-24-02667

Post-discharge mortality in suspected pediatric sepsis: insights from rural and urban healthcare settings in Rwanda

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Umuhoza,

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

The manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below. Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 2025 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 globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jianhong Zhou

Staff Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The journal format and technical production system, as well as the ethics of scientific research, must be adhered to. In addition, I want to know if the mortality rate was due to malnutrition and was this the main reason?

Reviewer #2: Formatting of Data Access Statement:

Ensure the font size, style, and alignment of the Data Access Statement match the required format of the journal.

The placement of this statement should follow the journal’s guidelines—typically under a separate section titled "Data Availability" or "Data Access."

Since the citation style (e.g., "[1]" and "[2]") is correct, no changes are needed there. However, ensure that references are formatted consistently in the reference list.

2. Issues with the Conclusion:

The conclusion does not fully align with the study’s objectives and findings.

It should directly reflect the study’s key results and not introduce new ideas that were not analyzed.

The authors should explicitly link their findings to the research objectives to maintain coherence.

3. Actionable Recommendations Needed:

The conclusion should not only summarize findings—it must include specific, actionable recommendations based on the study’s results.

Examples of improvements:

Strengthening post-discharge monitoring programs for at-risk pediatric patients.

Implementing targeted nutritional support interventions for children with malnutrition.

Developing policies to improve healthcare access in socially vulnerable populations.

The recommendations should clearly state who (healthcare providers, policymakers, NGOs, etc.) should implement them and how they can be applied in practice.

4. Justification of the Study:

The rationale for conducting the study should be more explicitly stated in the introduction and discussion sections.

The authors should clearly explain:

Why this research was necessary (e.g., gaps in knowledge, limited data in Rwanda, policy implications).

How their findings contribute to existing literature and why this study is significant.

What impact the study has on clinical practice, policy, or future research directions.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  EMMANUEL ABU BONSRA

**********

[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 Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005622.r003

Decision Letter 1

Collins Asweto

21 May 2025

PGPH-D-24-02667R1

Post-discharge mortality in suspected pediatric sepsis: insights from rural and urban healthcare settings in Rwanda

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Christian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’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 20th June 2025. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Collins Otieno Asweto, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: All things are good

Reviewer #2: Abstract

the abstract lacks keywords and it lacks objective as well. the main objective is missing in the abstract.

introduction

line 64 and 65 lacks intext citation. Authors should kindly re-write their introduction again to suit their topic. there is no gap found in the introduction. Authors should let their reader to know the gaps they identified.

Methods

the methods lacks details element including study population, sample size determinants, inclusion and exclusion and sample method

result

Table 1: Cohort characteristics and disposition, stratified by ages 0-6 months and

211 ages 6-60 months.

what are the authors reporting, regression ? descriptive ? please check the interpretation.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  ‪murtadha abbas‬‏

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005622.r005

Decision Letter 2

Collins Asweto

10 Aug 2025

PGPH-D-24-02667R2

Post-discharge mortality in suspected pediatric sepsis: insights from rural and urban healthcare settings in Rwanda

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Umuhoza,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’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 22nd August 2025. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Collins Otieno Asweto, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

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.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Akl thinks are good

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review this important and timely research that addresses a critical and under-researched topic.The topic is highly relevant to sub-Saharan Africa, and the lack of prior studies in Rwanda makes this contribution both novel and valuable for informing national healthcare priorities. I Thank the authors for their efforts in conducting a prospective, multisite study and for highlighting the rural-urban disparities in outcomes in Rwanda.

General:

Please improve some grammar and a concise in objective narrative of the manuscript.

Abstract:

Title and Abstract Consistency:

The title refers specifically to "suspected pediatric sepsis", but the abstract does not clearly define how sepsis was identified or suspected. Clarifying this would help contextualize the findings.

While it is understood that post-discharge causes of death can be difficult to verify, the abstract would benefit from the inclusion of any available information on probable or leading cause-specific mortality, even if based on caregiver reports or verbal autopsy methods.

Data clarity: Please clarify the group age range being reported on. For example

"Children aged <2 months exhibited the highest cumulative mortality risk."

This is confusing, as the age cohort is 0–6 months. Does this refer to a sub-analysis within the 0–6-month cohort? Clarify or remove if not directly supported by data.

Improvement on conclusion: The conclusion emphasizes the need for targeted post-discharge interventions, but it would be stronger if it briefly mentioned what kinds of interventions might be most feasible or effective in the Rwandan context mostly what ou saw was successful while tring to prevet death.

Manuscript:

Method section

Please improve on how ou defined “suspected infection” was operationalized.

Please specift why specific age bands were chosen for Kaplan-Meier analysis.

What was followed during verbal autopsy? This should be briefly described or cited. Was it validated in rwandan context? Is it from WHO?

Results section

Consider using a consolidated flow diagram or summary table (e.g., CONSORT-style) for clarity.

Clarify whether readmissions were to the same facility or any healthcare facility, and whether diagnoses at readmission were tracked.

Discussion

The findings are summarized well; however, the discussion section could benefit from more literature explaining why certain factors presented in the results may contribute to post-discharge mortality, including the noted gap in follow-up visits. Is this gap unique to Rwanda, or is it also observed in other LMICs?

This research could inform policymakers and pediatricians in establishing effective discharge planning. Please Consider adding a call to action for health system strengthening in similar settings within Rwanda and across sub-Saharan Africa.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

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: PGPH-D-24-02667R2.docx

pgph.0005622.s005.docx (14.2KB, docx)
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005622.r007

Decision Letter 3

Collins Asweto

5 Oct 2025

PGPH-D-24-02667R3

Post-discharge mortality in suspected pediatric sepsis: insights from rural and urban healthcare settings in Rwanda

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Umuhoza,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’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 5th November, 2025. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Collins Otieno Asweto, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

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

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #4: Reviewers of the original manuscript gave excellent suggestions for improvement to the initial manuscript. The authors respectfully acknowledged the shortcomings of the manuscript and made honest, and in my opinion, successful, efforts to improve the manuscript per the reviewers' suggestions.

The manuscript now reads more clearly, with observations cleaner and more quantitative for explaining post-discharge mortality of children hospitalized for suspected infection.

The authors improved their Discussion by going beyond just the observational aspect of the study and including potential--and doable--actions that healthcare providers, hospital leaders, community, and government can execute to reduce post-discharge mortality.

I commend the reviewers for finding the shortcomings in this manuscript, and the authors for honestly addressing all substantive comments for improvement and for converting their manuscript from an intriguing though average observational study into a stronger observational study with specific calls to action for important solutions to improve health care in this part of sub-Saharan Africa.

I support a recommendation of publication following the changes made in this revised manuscript.

Reviewer #5: Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised manuscript on post-discharge mortality in Rwandan children with suspected sepsis. This is an important and well-conducted study that addresses a critical knowledge gap in Rwanda. The prospective cohort design and comparison between rural and urban sites are notable strengths, and the findings have significant implications for pediatric care in Rwanda and similar settings. The manuscript has been substantially improved following previous revisions; however, several key points require attention to further strengthen the paper for publication.

Major revisions

Methods (Lines 128-129 and 168-169): A major point requiring significant clarification is the methodology surrounding the cause of death and the definition of the study population. There appears to be a critical contradiction regarding the use of verbal autopsies. Your response to previous feedback indicated that verbal autopsies were not performed and that this statement was corrected; however, the current manuscript draft states on lines 168-169 that "we performed verbal autopsies to determine the likely cause of death." This discrepancy must be resolved to ensure the integrity of the reported methods. Similarly, the definition for "suspected sepsis" on lines 128-129 is noted as being based on the treating clinician's assessment. The manuscript would benefit from a more detailed operational definition or a description of the common clinical signs that guided this assessment, as this is fundamental to understanding the cohort's characteristics and ensuring replicability. In addition, the Blantyre Coma Scale has a score please define what abnormal is for clarity.

Conclusions (Lines 331-351): The conclusion section could be more tightly aligned with the specific, statistically significant risk factors identified in your results. While the current recommendations for risk models and follow-up visits are sound, they are somewhat general. The manuscript's impact would be greater if it more explicitly linked the high odds ratios for factors like severe malnutrition (WAZ < -3), abnormal Blantyre Coma Scale, and travel time (>1 hour) to your proposed strategies. For instance, the findings strongly suggest that discharge planning should include mandatory nutritional screening with referrals for support, and that follow-up protocols should be systematically intensified for children with neurological impairment at admission or those living far from health facilities.

Minor revisions

Discussion (Lines 282-288): Your hypothesis regarding the higher mortality at the urban tertiary hospital is plausible and well-articulated. This point could be strengthened by briefly discussing whether any baseline data on illness severity (e.g., admission severity scores) differed significantly between the two sites. If this data is not available, explicitly stating this and framing it as an important area for future investigation would add further nuance. Finally, a thorough proofread for minor grammatical errors would improve the overall readability of the text. Addressing these points will enhance the clarity, consistency, and impact of your valuable research.

Table alignment and formatting: align your variables to the left instead of centralised, eg demographics etc. then align the values on the table to the centre.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Paul S. Eder

Reviewer #5: Yes:  Suleiman Idris Ahmad

**********

[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.]

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005622.r009

Decision Letter 4

Julia Robinson

20 Nov 2025

Post-discharge mortality in suspected pediatric sepsis: insights from rural and urban healthcare settings in Rwanda

PGPH-D-24-02667R4

Dear Umuhoza,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Post-discharge mortality in suspected pediatric sepsis: insights from rural and urban healthcare settings in Rwanda' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Julia Robinson

Executive Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

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 (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #4: In my opinion, the authors adequately addressed my and other reviewers' concerns with updated text in the manuscript, in particular in the Abstract, Conclusion, and Discussion sections.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Paul S. Eder, Ph.D.

**********

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. Supporting Information.

    Inclusivity in global research.

    (PDF)

    pgph.0005622.s001.pdf (185.9KB, pdf)
    S1 Table. Supplementary Table 1.

    Overall demographics and cohort characteristics.

    (DOCX)

    pgph.0005622.s002.docx (18.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers comments and authors response_CU_v2.docx

    pgph.0005622.s004.docx (19.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (2).docx

    pgph.0005622.s006.docx (28.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PGPH-D-24-02667R2.docx

    pgph.0005622.s005.docx (14.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Letter V2.docx

    pgph.0005622.s007.docx (31.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Letter_13 Oct 2025 (1).docx

    pgph.0005622.s008.docx (14.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    This study involves sensitive clinical data from pediatric patients collected across multiple sites, including Rwanda. The following materials have been made openly available through the Sepsis CoLab Dataverse repository on Borealis: the study protocol, informed consent forms, case report forms, data dictionary, and metadata schema. These can be accessed at the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/NTNTZX. The primary de-identified dataset is available to qualified researchers upon request. Requests must include a description of the intended use and will be reviewed by the Sepsis CoLab Data Governance Committee and the original investigators. This process is designed to ensure compliance with participant consent, local site agreements, and ethical considerations specific to pediatric populations. All requests should be submitted via email to: Email: sepsiscolab@bcchr.ca.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES