Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Apr 2;15(4):e0230407. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230407

Choosing where to give birth: Factors influencing migrant women’s decision making in two regions of Thailand

Naomi Tschirhart 1,*, Wichuda Jiraporncharoen 2,*, Chaisiri Angkurawaranon 2, Ahmar Hashmi 2, Suphak Nosten 3, Rose McGready 4, Trygve Ottersen 1,5
Editor: Calistus Wilunda6
PMCID: PMC7117675  PMID: 32240176

Abstract

Background

Choosing where to give birth can be a matter of life and death for both mother and child. Migrants, registered or unregistered, may face different choices and challenges than non-migrants. Despite this, previous research on the factors migrant women consider when deciding where to give birth is very limited. This paper addresses this gap by examining women’s decision making in a respective border and urban locale in Thailand.

Methods

We held focus group discussions [13] with 72 non-Thai pregnant migrant women at non-government clinics in a rural border area and at two hospitals in Chiang Mai, a large city in Northern Thailand in 2018. We asked women where they will go to give birth and to explain the factors that influenced their decision.

Results

Women identified getting the relevant documentation necessary to register their child’s birth, safe birth and medical advice/quality care, as the top three factors that influenced their care seeking decision making. Language of service, free or low cost care, language of services, proximity to home, and limited alternate options for care were also identified as important considerations.

Conclusion

Understanding factors that migrant women value when choosing where to deliver can help health care providers to create services that are responsive to migrants’ preferences and encourage provision of relevant information which may influence patient decision making. The desire to obtain birth documentation for their child appears to be important for migrants who understand the importance of personal documentation for the lives of their children. Healthcare institutions may wish to introduce processes to facilitate obtaining documentation for pregnant migrant women and their newborns.

Introduction

Choosing where to give birth is a multifactorial decision. Awareness of available options, individual preferences for health services, prior birth experiences, perspectives of family and friends, recommendations from health professionals and concerns about safety influence the selection of birth locations [1]. Geographic proximity also plays an important role in women’s decisions on where to give birth [2]. In addition to these considerations, pregnant migrant women experience barriers to healthcare which constrain their decision making. Entitlement to publicly funded free or low cost maternal healthcare is often linked to administrative status and pregnant unregistered migrants who don’t have the appropriate documentation may not be eligible for subsidized healthcare. Language barriers and associated communication difficulties pose difficulties for migrant women and there is a need to develop culturally sensitive birth support programs for these populations [3]. Studies from high income countries have found that migrant women are less likely to have sufficient prenatal care and often have higher rates of maternal mortality and morbidity than host populations [3,4]. While barriers to migrant maternal healthcare have been well documented, migrant women’s decision making in relation to healthcare utilization is often overlooked in the literature. This study addresses the gap by providing the perspectives of rural and urban migrant women in the middle income country of Thailand surrounding selection of a location to give birth.

Research setting overview

Health coverage for migrants

In this study we define a migrant as “an individual who has resided in a foreign country for more than 1 month or who has crossed a national border to access essential services, irrespective of the causes, voluntary or involuntary and the means, regular or irregular used to migrate” [5]. Persons who have been granted refugee status are not considered migrants. Our study is specific to international non-Thai migrants who do not have citizenship in Thailand. Migrants exist in Thailand with both regularized and irregular administrative statuses and throughout this article we use the terms documented and undocumented to reflect these respective classifications.

There are approximately 4.9 million migrants living in Thailand of which 3.1 million are from nearby Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV) [6]. Thailand has made great progress toward Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and offers migrants coverage through two mechanisms: the Social Security Scheme (SSS) and the Migrant Health Insurance Scheme (MHIS). Documented migrants in the formal economy can utilize the SSS which is funded by contributions from the employee, employer and government [6]. The MHIS is designed to provide coverage for migrants who are not eligible under the SSS and is funded solely by contributions from migrants who pay 1600 baht a year (51 USD) for coverage in addition to 500 baht for an initial health examination [6,7]. Migrants must enroll initially for a two year period and thus pay 3200 baht (102 USD)[8]. MHIS is compulsory but there isn’t a mechanism to ensure that all undocumented migrants participate. After 2014, migrant services were centralized and migrants were required to simultaneously register with the Ministry of Interior for a work permit, go through national verification and get a work permit from the Ministry of Labour in order to purchase insurance coverage from the MHIS [7]. Essentially, there was a policy shift whereby undocumented migrants needed to become documented and regularized to be able to join the MHIS. Just over half (64%) of CLMV migrants who are eligible to receive coverage through these two mechanisms have enrolled and can access antenatal and birth services through the Thai healthcare system with the same coverage as Thai citizens [6]. However, it is estimated that there are an additional 800,000 undocumented migrants who are presumed to be uninsured but would be theoretically eligible for MHIS [6]. Without insurance, undocumented migrants would receive birth care if they present at a Thai hospital while in labour but would be billed for the services.

To address the persistent need for healthcare among migrant communities along the Thailand-Myanmar border, the Migrant Fund (M-FUND), a non-profit insurance scheme, was developed to provide health coverage for undocumented migrants. Initially launched with monthly premiums of 60–150 baht (2–5 USD) for M-FUND version 1, at the time that we wrote this manuscript the M-FUND was in version 3[8]. We conducted this research in 2018 just prior to the transition to M-FUND version 2 and at that time research pregnant women were predominantly enrolling in the 100 baht plan which covered hospital admissions, and outpatient consultation to a maximum coverage of 60,000 THB/ year (1964 USD). To date over nine thousand migrants are registered in the M-FUND and are able to receive healthcare for a broad range of conditions including pregnancy at five collaborating hospitals and clinics [9].

Border area and Chiang Mai city

This research took place in two research locales in Thailand, one along the border with Myanmar and a second in a peri-urban area of a large city.

Tak province, Thailand shares a long and porous border with Myanmar and has a long history of migrant and refugee healthcare provision by non-profit organizations. As Myanmar has opened up, donor funding has moved into the country and further investments have been made into maternal health provision at government hospitals. In addition, refugee camps on the Thai side are in the process of closing. These changes along the border have led to a reduction in funds for non-profit health organizations. However, keeping with a thirty year tradition of low-cost healthcare provision, these organizations continue to provide free or low cost antenatal and delivery services to undocumented migrants who are not covered by the Thai government’s SSS or MHIS schemes. Migrants with insurance coverage can of course also access the Thai public healthcare system in Tak province.

Chiang Mai is the second largest city in Thailand and is situated in the country’s north-western region. Public healthcare in and around Chiang Mai is provided by the Thai public healthcare system and this region does not have a history of non-profit migrant specific health clinics as found in Tak province. In both the border region and Chiang Mai, uninsured persons can utilize Thai government hospital care but will be billed for the services.

Methods

In designing the study we opted to utilize focus groups as this method helps to facilitate conversations between participants, is culturally appropriate and has been successfully utilized by other studies in this setting [1012]. We held focus group discussions [13] with 72 non-Thai pregnant migrant women at three non-government clinics in a rural border area and at two hospitals in Chiang Mai, the largest city in Northern Thailand in May and June of 2018. We recruited pregnant women who self-identified as non-Thai migrants and did not have an acute medical or obstetrical condition that would be disrupted or delayed by involvement in focus group discussion. Along the Thailand-Myanmar border we sought individuals who were fluent in spoken Burmese or Karen and in Chiang Mai individuals who spoke sufficient Burmese, Karen or Thai language to be able to participate in the research. Where possible, we held separate group discussions for first-time and experienced pregnant women. All focus groups were held at health facilities in a quiet location, separate from where care was being provided. At the beginning of each discussion, the facilitator and interpreter read the consent form out loud. Participants provided verbal consent and the facilitator signed the consent form to document that consent had been obtained. In the border area NT, a researcher with training in qualitative methods, lead the discussions and SN, a skilled community based researcher, provided interpretation to help facilitate the dialogue. NT speaks English, French and Thai and previously conducted her doctoral fieldwork in Thailand. SN is fluent in English, French, Thai, Karen and Burmese and has provided interpretation and facilitation support for multiple community based studies in the research setting. In Chiang Mai, Kulyapa Yoonut lead the focus group discussions in Thai and SN provided primary interpretation with support for Shan language from an undergraduate university student. Ms. Yoonut is a Thai study nurse with focus group expertise. Members of the research team including WJ, CA, AH and a study assistant were present for some of the group discussions.

Prior to the fieldwork, we developed a series of images with examples of possible reasons why women would seek to deliver birth at a specific location. We decided to use photos and drawings produced by the research team to engage participants, many of whom had low literacy levels, as these methods have been used to engage participants in prior studies [10,11]. These images were based on themes identified in the literature and previous informal discussions with migrant health care providers. We piloted the cards and images with members of the research team and colleagues who are from Myanmar to ensure that the meanings of the images and terms were appropriately translated and culturally appropriate. The themes in our photo cards included: safe birth, birth certificate, close place, medical advice, friend or family advice, only option, free, fear, previous problem and language.

We utilized convenience sampling and where possible we attempted to create focus groups that included women similar in gravidity (primi and multi), language and ethnicity. Healthcare workers informed potential participants about the study and invited interested persons to meet at a specific time and location to join the discussion. In each focus group, we utilized a semi-structured interview guide and asked women where they will go to give birth and to explain the factors that influenced their decision. We introduced the photo cards one- by-one, explaining the theme and asked participants to select the reasons that were important to them and to place them in a pile. We then asked them to choose their top three reasons and discuss. We also asked women to identify any additional considerations which influenced their choice of birth locale. In addition to audio recording the sessions, two members of the research team also took field notes.

Following the focus group discussions, all of the audio files were subsequently transcribed and translated into English by an independent translator. In the case where we needed to clarify meaning or linguistic nuances members of the research team fluent in languages used by participants reviewed segments of the audio file. We uploaded the files into NVivo (version 11) qualitative software and conducted thematic analysis to organize the data around pre-identified and emergent themes related to considerations when choosing a place to give birth. Using a coding frame initially comprised of the pre-identified themes NT coded the data while continuously updating the frame to include emergent themes. Team members subsequently met to discuss the analysis. For the photocard activity, we documented the factors women considered important when selecting care by giving each factor a point from every focus group where it was prioritized. We identified the priorities of the women within each focus group, and then enumerated the frequency with which women selected these important factors across all groups. Similarly, we report the top priorities determined by each respective focus group.

In addition to the focus groups, we also conducted key informant interviews [18] with maternal health providers who worked with migrant populations in both the border and city region. Based on the data obtained from both focus group participants and key informants we developed a diagram of birth registration pathways (Fig 1). To further triangulate the data we verified our preliminary results with several key informants that we had interviewed as well as additional stakeholders knowledgeable about birth registration.

Fig 1. Pathways to receive a birth certificate for migrant children born in Thailand.

Fig 1

The research project was reviewed and approved by Research Ethics Committee 2 at the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University (FAM-2560-05204). The project was also reviewed and approved through the standard internal process at the Department of Community Medicine and Global Health at the University of Oslo and notified to the Data Protection Official for Research at NSD—Norwegian Centre for Research Data (58542). In addition, we sought input from the Tak Province Community Advisory Board.

Results

Description of the study sample

We held a total of thirteen focus group discussions (72 women) including nine at border clinics on the Thai side of the border in Tak province and four at hospitals in peri-urban Chiang Mai. Participants along the border spoke Burmese, Karen (Sgaw and Pwo dialects), while in Chiang Mai their first language was Shan and Chin. We present participant characteristics in Table 1. All were migrants from Myanmar and most were experienced mothers. Integration into the formal Thai economy and associated health insurance coverage varied between the study sites with participants from Chiang Mai more likely to have Thai government SSS or MHIS coverage. Many of the women in the border clinics were participating in the M-FUND, a non-profit health insurance program specifically for undocumented migrants.

Table 1. Characteristics of focus group participants (n = 72).

Characteristics N
Location of Antenatal care
Border sites 54
Chiang Mai hospitals 18
Number of pregnancies
1 27
>1 45

Planned birth location

Most women expressed that they planned to give birth at the clinic or hospital where they were currently receiving antenatal care. Participants could access care at these locations for free or 30 baht (1USD). For some, especially in the border area, the clinic where they were seeking antenatal care was the only one they knew about where they could get low cost services. Their other low cost option would be to give birth in the village with the assistance of a traditional birth attendant. Hospital births in Myawaddy (Myanmar) and Mae Sot Hospital (Thailand) were regarded as expensive by undocumented women.

Women in peri-urban Chiang Mai were much more knowledgeable about the various hospitals where they could give birth, but preference for birth location was somewhat pre-determined, as women who signed up for the MHIS program received a designated hospital where they could receive low cost care. For care to be covered at another hospital they needed to receive a referral.

Important considerations when deciding where to give birth

We did not find a notable difference in the top three considerations between focus groups irrespective of differences in ethnicity, language, gravidity or rural versus urban setting.

Women indicated that the top three most important considerations when selecting a birth location were: receiving the necessary paperwork to secure a birth certificate, having a safe birth with good health outcomes, and receiving medical advice and quality care.

Birth certificate

When giving birth in a clinic or hospital in Thailand, migrants receive paperwork that they can then use to register the birth with local Thai authorities and to ultimately obtain a birth certificate for their child. During the focus group discussions in both study locations, women highly valued getting a birth certificate. Having a Thai birth certificate comes along with certain entitlements from the Thai government including access to UHC healthcare for the child and ability to enroll in government schools. A birth certificate, as a form of documentation, would also permit greater mobility and freedom of movement in Thailand and between Thailand and Myanmar. Women explained that the certificate could be used for the child’s whole life and would help them “not to suffer like their parents”.

Having a birth certificate was equally valued by women who planned to raise their children in Myanmar as they believed it was necessary to register children for school. Women described it as more robust than the census registration where names are added to the family house registry. One woman explained that she had successfully registered her child in a Myanmar school without the birth certificate but she could not transfer them to another school and another indicated that without these documents they could not move their children across the border to Thailand.

Many of the participants had experiences living in Thailand without the proper documentation, and this also impeded their ability to register their child’s birth and to obtain their birth certificate. One woman explained that her daughter was born in Thailand but she was not able to obtain a birth certificate.

I gave birth here but I didn’t get a birth certificate. When I came to give birth here, I had my passport. But later, I lost my passport. So I didn’t have a passport after I delivered. The health worker asked me to bring my passport. Come back and get it on the 21st. I couldn’t get my daughter’s birth certificate because I lost my passport.

Fig 1 shows the pathways for parents to obtain a birth certificate for their child in Thailand. Women expressed that it was easier to obtain the necessary paperwork to register their child’s birth if they gave birth in a clinic or hospital as compared to the village. Some indicated that registration in the village would be costly and time consuming. A participant explained,

For my first child, it took almost two years to get a birth certificate. We have to get it after we deliver. When you live in the village you have to go through different steps. But now they ask us to go and deliver at the hospital so that they can provide us with the birth certificate right away.

Stakeholders indicated that parents whose child was born at home, have to take the additional step of bringing two witnesses to the district office to register the child which would add time and complexity to the process.

Several maternal care providers in the border area, have teams which provide information on birth registration to pregnant women including a list of the required documents and then assists with transportation after delivery to the district office for birth registration. Stakeholders explained that birth certification in Thailand is available regardless of whether a migrant has documents or not and thus irregular or undocumented migrants are also eligible to receive a birth certificate for their child.

For women who give birth in Thailand and wish to receive a birth certificate from Myanmar, Myanmar policy does not automatically recognize Thai birth certificates. Instead the parents must present to their local village in Myanmar and begin the process or register their child with the Myanmar embassy in the country the child was born within one month of birth. Children whose birth is registered in Myanmar at the village level and who subsequently receive a Myanmar birth certificate will be officially “born” in Myanmar despite having been actually birthed in Thailand.

In Thailand, parents need to present to get a birth certificate within 15 days of birth. According to participants, going back and getting a child’s birth certificate years after their birth was a difficult and costly endeavor. One woman noticed two children at the factory where she works who don’t have birth certificates. She perceived that they would have to pay a large sum of money to get their documentation processed,

The children are getting bigger at the age to attend school. If they do the birth certificate, it will cost 30,000 (baht) (990 USD) for each. If they have the birth certificate, their names will be added to the household register. After that, they will be accepted at the school. They were born on this side so they don’t have a birth certificate from the Myanmar side.

Obtaining a replacement birth certificate was also costly and one woman had to pay 50,000 kyat (33 USD) to have it reissued. She explained, “For the very first time after our child was born, we didn’t have to pay. But if we lost it afterwards, we’ll need to pay. When we lost it, it seems like we don’t respect them”.

Safe birth

Having a safe birth with positive health outcomes for their child helped motivate women to give birth in the clinic or hospital. One woman described her reasoning, “This is both us and our child. We are a lot safer from the danger of delivering when we come to deliver at the clinic”. Participants expressed that as parents they would be happy if their children are healthy.

Medical advice and quality care

Participants expanded the concept of medical advice, from advice received during care, to include quality care. Receiving quality healthcare from health professionals with medical expertise in handling birth complications were identified by participants as important considerations when deciding where to give birth. A woman explained, “When we’re at the hospital (clinic) whether or not we have a cesarean, we have quality care from health workers here at the clinic. So that’s better than to deliver at home”. Participants were confident that the health workers at the clinic or hospital would be able to take care of their child whether it was healthy or not.

In addition to the top factors women identified, receiving low or no cost care, language, proximity, and the clinic as their only option were other important considerations when deciding where to give birth. Very few groups indicated that past problems, advice from friends or family and fear were important in selecting a place to give birth. There were some subtle differences in women’s considerations from the rural border and urban settings.

Affordable care

In the border region, women who attended antenatal care at the non-profit clinics were able to access services for uncomplicated births free of charge. The M-FUND, a non-profit health insurance fund, was also put into place where women could make monthly contributions and have access to services at a larger hospital if necessary. Participants expressed that care affordability was an important factor when choosing where to give birth. In one woman’s words, “It will be difficult for us if we don’t have enough money when we get labor pain”. Fees for birth services at the nearby Thai and Myanmar government hospital were considered high for undocumented participants. However, some women felt that free or low cost services were not as important as the others as “It’s something we need to pay for if we really need it”.

In Chiang Mai, most of the participants were enrolled in the MHIS program and were planning to give birth at a designated hospital where they would only have to pay 30 baht (1USD) to give birth. While knowledgeable about other options, they chose to birth at their designated hospital instead of paying more to go to another hospital.

Language

The importance of language when deciding where to give birth varied among focus groups. Women in the Chiang Mai urban setting could often speak and understand Thai and thus did not see language as an important consideration. Additionally, many of them spoke Shan and to our knowledge birth services in Shan language are not offered in Thailand. They also valued doctors and nurses who were easy to communicate with and spoke to them using simplified Thai language.

For women on the border area, being able to receive care in Karen or Burmese was helpful. However, some indicated that they would bring someone to interpret if they went to a Thai hospital.

Close by

Proximity to healthcare services was identified by some participants as a consideration when choosing where to seek care. Getting care close by was valued by women and they used travel time to approximate distance from their home to the healthcare facility. Participants had different definitions of closeness. For example, one woman who was living in a village in Myanmar spent two hours walking to reach the clinic in Thailand and perceived the clinic as close to her home. She explained, “We need to consider it as close for us”. In the Chiang Mai urban setting, many of the women lived near the hospital where they were registered.

Only option

Participants in the clinics along the Thailand-Myanmar border indicated that the non-profit clinic where they planned to give birth was the only healthcare option that they knew about and which they saw as accessible to them. Contrastingly, none of the urban participants perceived their designate Thai hospital as the only choice.

Discussion

This is the first study to assess factors in choosing a place to deliver among migrants as far as we are aware. The three most important considerations for migrant women when considering where to give birth were securing paperwork necessary to obtain a birth certificate, experiencing a safe birth and receiving medical advice and quality care. These three factors were consistent among both border and urban migrant participants.

Choice

For migrant women in this study, birth places where women perceived they could access care were limited by knowledge of available clinics and hospitals and entitlement to free or low cost birth services. Some of the participants along the Thailand-Myanmar border only knew of the specific clinic where they were receiving care and viewed giving birth at home in the village with the assistance of a traditional birth attendant as their other option. Migrants in the urban Chiang Mai group were much more knowledgeable about other hospitals where they could give birth and didn’t mention the possibility of home birth. The urban and border groups were very different, the former being documented, able to comprehend Thai language and registered in the Thai government’s MHIS scheme which gave them access to care at a designated hospital. The rural border group had participants with a greater variety of documentation statuses including a large number who would not be eligible for low cost care at a Thai hospital.

At the time of the research, all of the women were receiving free or low-cost birth services and most planned to give birth at the same clinic or hospital where they were receiving care. Both groups of migrants were confident in the quality of care they would receive from the healthcare providers and believed that they would be able to get referred onwards for more complicated care if necessary. Most participants had insurance coverage from the government or non-profit sector which would help to prevent catastrophic costs associated with a Caesarean section at a Thai hospital for an uninsured migrant.

Top factors

While participants’ choice of place of birth must be considered in light of participants’ narrow range of options, when we asked them to identify the top three considerations they came to consensus around safe birth, medical advice or quality care and documentation necessary to obtain a birth certificate. Safety and quality care have been documented internationally as key factors when seeking maternal healthcare [13]. A desire to have a safe birth facilitated through quality healthcare, including access to necessary emergency interventions and positive associated health outcomes for mother and child has universal appeal and echoes global health policy objectives [14].

However, striving to get documentation necessary to register their child’s birth, is not directly linked to immediate health outcomes for woman or child, and we suspect is specific to participants’ experiences as migrants. Women described their lived experience being a migrant in Thailand without the proper documentation and wanted greater stability for their children. Another study with Shan migrants in Thailand reported safe birth and acquiring identification documents as motivations for attending antenatal care [15]. Thailand does not provide citizenship to children born in Thailand of migrant parents, but the country’s policies to provide elementary education and low-cost healthcare coverage to migrant children may also incentivize birth registration. According to a 2005 cabinet resolution, all “non-Thai” children in Thailand can receive education in grades 1–9 at Thai public schools [16]. While according to policy, migrant children should be able to receive free education at Thai public schools without providing proof of identity, a study from another Thai province reports teachers requesting identification documents [16]. This requires some discussion, as women’s perception related to access to services such as education and health services, may not only reflect Thai or Myanmar policy, but also local practices that can constrain access. Our participants believed that a birth certificate was necessary to register a child in school and thus it is possible that administrative barriers on the ground and the associated request for documentation create real difficulties for migrants. Low cost basic healthcare coverage can be purchased for migrant children who are dependents of migrant workers through the MHIS with yearly cost of 11 USD for children under 7 years old [16]. Migrant infants who have obtained a birth certificate can also be registered for MHIS coverage.

Birth certificates are also necessary to obtain travel documents and thus also help children to move around freely which is another incentive. We suspect that there has been a policy shift towards improved personal documentation in both Thailand and Myanmar in the last decade, as indicated by the national verification process, which has fueled the need for birth certificates on both sides of the border [17]. Revisions to the Civil Registration Act in 2008 allowing birth registration for migrant children in Thailand and a 2015 policy permitting children born before 2008 to retroactively apply for birth registration are also evidence of the movement towards improved documentation [18].

Our participants reported the importance of getting a birth certificate for their child soon after the birth and Thailand has a policy of providing free birth registration in the first fifteen days after the infant is born [19]. This short time window presents an additional difficulty for mothers who are themselves undocumented. A few women reported previously giving birth in Thailand but were not able to receive a birth certificate for their child as they themselves did not have their own personal identification documents at that time. From discussions with stakeholders working on the ground, we understand that migrant women do not need to have personal documentation to register their child’s birth certificate. However, we perceive that undocumented women may feel uncomfortable presenting at the district office to request a birth certificate due to their own precarious status and an associated fear of authorities. Inability to speak Thai (or read in Karen or Burmese) may be another barrier for parents who do not have support from someone who can interpret during the registration process [10]. Women, especially first-time mothers, may also not be knowledgeable of pathways to birth registration. Being unaware of the need for birth registration or the process has been reported as barriers to registration in the Thai context [20]. Migrant children who are born in Thailand but do not receive a birth certificate are at risk of becoming stateless, meaning that they are not recognized as a citizen of any country, if their parents do not register their birth in Myanmar. Lack of birth registration contributes to a cycle of statelessness and a loss of future entitlements for migrant children.

In the literature, outside of Thailand little has been reported on birth certificates as consideration for migrants selecting a location to give birth outside of the remit of birth tourism in countries that provide birthright citizenship where infants born in the territory are immediately entitled to citizenship [21]. Given the value of registration in securing social, economic and political rights of future generations of migrants, we anticipate that birth registration is an important consideration for migrants choosing a birthplace worldwide. We urge scholars to consider the importance of registration when designing for migrant maternal healthcare research.

Other factors

Internationally care affordability has been identified as a challenge for undocumented pregnant mothers in countries that do not provide free care to this group [22]. Women in most of our focus groups indicated that low cost or free services were important when deciding where to give birth and at the time of the research all were receiving affordable care. They valued the provision of services in a language migrants understand and were able to comprehend the care they received in Karen, Burmese and Thai. It is possible that participants in our research did not consider affordability and language among the most pressing concerns when seeking care, as they are already able to use free or low cost services in languages they understand and thus these considerations while important were not highest on their list. Thai hospitals in the border region frequently have Karen and Burmese interpreters, although they may have large caseloads. Alternatively, many in the border region likely knew that the Non Governmental Organization (NGO) facility would provide a bridging person (cost-free) who speaks Karen/Burmese and Thai if referral to a different language facility was needed. Thailand is unique as both groups of migrant participants were able to get some insurance coverage from the government and non-profit sector respectively, which influenced their entitlements. In contrast to other settings internationally communication challenges and gaps in healthcare coverage have been documented as difficulties for pregnant migrant women seeking healthcare [3].

Policy and practice recommendations

We anticipate that undocumented mothers may face additional challenges when attempting to register their child’s birth and recognize that making it easier for pregnant women to obtain documentation prior to giving birth, may help to ease registration. NGOs and government healthcare facilities may consider adopting institutional policies that help women ensure they have the necessary documentation prior to their delivery. Registration support is resource intensive as transportation and translators are required and consideration should be given to how this can be funded. Efforts from NGOs to help interpret registration laws and assist migrant parents in navigating registration have reported successful outcomes and expanded partnerships between district offices and clinic/hospitals where women give birth could help to smooth the process of receiving birth certificates for migrant children [23].

Strengths and limitations

Participants participated in the analysis by ranking the factors during the focus group which added to the robustness of the study. By including migrants from two different regions, with the inclusion of non-profit clinics and government hospitals, we are able to strengthen our study. In interpreting our research, a limitation is that we conducted fieldwork in 2018 and policies and implementation frequently change. With this in mind, this study should be considered within the specific time period. One limitation of our study is that we didn’t speak with women who elect forgo antenatal care and those only arriving for emergency obstetric care. Further discussions with these women would present a more complete picture as they are likely to represent the more marginalized.

We anticipate that the ranking of which considerations are most important will depend on current care. As all women who participated in this research were receiving free or low-cost maternal care, affordability may not be reported as a top consideration in their decision making in this specific context, even if it would be a top consideration when asked more generally to migrants in other geographical regions.

Conclusion

In efforts to create services that are responsive to migrants’ needs, health care providers can benefit from understanding the factors which influence migrant women’s decision making. This knowledge can be used to shape services and to provide patients with information they can use when deciding where to give birth. Obtaining birth documentation for their child appears to be a factor which is specific to migrants and healthcare institutions may wish to develop processes to help obtain documentation for pregnant migrant women and migrant newborns.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Mae Tao Clinic, the Borderland Health Foundation, Shoklo Malaria Research Unit, Saraphi Hospital and San Sai Hospital for contributing to this project. Thank you to Kulyapa Yoonut, Patcharin Puttanusegsan and Napat Khirikoekkong for assisting with data collection. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of our participants who shared their experiences with us and in Tak Province the border hospitals, Mae Ra Mat and Po Prah District Hospitals and Mae Sot General Hospital, for ongoing support.

Data Availability

Our data is qualitative and contains personally identifiable information. Making this data publicly available would compromise participant confidentiality and privacy. Sharing excerpts of transcripts would also violate the agreement to which patients and key informants consented when they agreed to participate. For these reasons data can not be shared. Our protocol, and the associated data sharing restrictions, was reviewed and approved by Research Ethics Committee 2 at the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University (FAM-2560-05204) and was reviewed and approved through the standard internal process at the Department of Community Medicine and Global Health, University of Oslo. We have also notified our project to the Data Protection Official for Research at NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data (58542).

Funding Statement

We acknowledge the funding which made this research possible. We received funds from the Faculty of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Chiang Mai University, the Life Sciences Internationalization Fund at the University of Oslo and the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7-PEOPLE-2013-COFUND) under grant agreement n° 609020 - Scientia Fellows. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Coxon K, Chisholm A, Malouf R, Rowe R, Hollowell J. What influences birth place preferences, choices and decision-making amongst healthy women with straightforward pregnancies in the UK? A qualitative evidence synthesis using a ‘best fit’ framework approach. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017. March 31;17(1):103 10.1186/s12884-017-1279-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pilkington H, Blondel B, Drewniak N, Zeitlin J. Choice in maternity care: associations with unit supply, geographic accessibility and user characteristics. Int J Health Geogr. 2012. August 20;11(1):35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Almeida LM, Caldas J, Ayres-de-Campos D, Salcedo-Barrientos D, Dias S. Maternal Healthcare in Migrants: A Systematic Review. Matern Child Health J. 2013. October 1;17(8):1346–54. 10.1007/s10995-012-1149-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.van den Akker T, van Roosmalen J. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity in a migration perspective. Migr–Impact Reprod Health. 2016. April 1;32:26–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tschirhart N, Nosten F, Foster AM. Access to free or low-cost tuberculosis treatment for migrants and refugees along the Thailand-Myanmar border in Tak province, Thailand. Int J Equity Health [Internet]. 2016. December [cited 2016 Jul 19];15(1). Available from: http://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12939-016-0391-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Harkins B. Thailand Migration Report 2019 [Internet]. United Nations Thematic Working Group on Migration in Thailand; 2019. Available from: https://thailand.iom.int/sites/default/files/document/publications/Thailand%20Report%202019_22012019_HiRes.pdf
  • 7.Suphanchaimat R, Pudpong N, Prakongsai P, Putthasri W, Hanefeld J, Mills A. The Devil Is in the Detail—Understanding Divergence between Intention and Implementation of Health Policy for Undocumented Migrants in Thailand. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(6):1016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pudpong N, Durier N, Julchoo S, Sainam P, Kuttiparambil B, Suphanchaimat R. Assessment of a Voluntary Non-Profit Health Insurance Scheme for Migrants along the Thai–Myanmar Border: A Case Study of the Migrant Fund in Thailand. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(14):2581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.The Migrant Fund [Internet]. Dreamlopments. 2019. Available from: https://www.dreamlopments.com/the-migrant-fund
  • 10.Gilder ME, Moo P, Hashmi A, Praisaengdet N, Wai K, Pimanpanarak M, et al. “I can’t read and don’t understand”: Health literacy and health messaging about folic acid for neural tube defect prevention in a migrant population on the Myanmar-Thailand border. PLOS ONE. 2019. June 13;14(6):e0218138 10.1371/journal.pone.0218138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hashmi AH, Paw MK, Nosten S, Darakamon MC, Gilder ME, Charunwatthana P, et al. ‘Because the baby asks for it’: a mixed-methods study on local perceptions toward nutrition during pregnancy among marginalised migrant women along the Myanmar–Thailand border. Glob Health Action. 2018;11(1):1473104 10.1080/16549716.2018.1473104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tschirhart N, Sein T, Nosten F, Foster AM. Migrant and Refugee Patient Perspectives on Travel and Tuberculosis along the Thailand-Myanmar Border: A Qualitative Study. Renia L, editor. PLOS ONE. 2016. August 10;11(8):e0160222 10.1371/journal.pone.0160222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hoang H, Le Q, Ogden K. Women’s maternity care needs and related service models in rural areas: A comprehensive systematic review of qualitative evidence. Women Birth. 2014. December 1;27(4):233–41. 10.1016/j.wombi.2014.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Koblinsky M, Moyer CA, Calvert C, Campbell J, Campbell OMR, Feigl AB, et al. Quality maternity care for every woman, everywhere: a call to action. The Lancet. 2016. November 5;388(10057):2307–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Seo BK. The Work of Inscription: Antenatal Care, Birth Documents, and Shan Migrant Women in Chiang Mai. Med Anthropol Q. 2017;31(4):481–98. 10.1111/maq.12342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tuangratananon T, Suphanchaimat R, Julchoo S, Sinam P, Putthasri W. Education Policy for Migrant Children in Thailand and How It Really Happens; A Case Study of Ranong Province, Thailand. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(3):430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gruß I. The emergence of the temporary migrant: bureaucracies, legality and Myanmar migrants in Thailand. SOJOURN J Soc Issues Southeast Asia. 2017;32(1):1–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Good Practices Paper—Action 7: Ensuring birth registration for the prevention of statelessness [Internet]. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); 2017. Available from: https://www.unhcr.org/ke/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/11/Good-Practices-Paper-on-Ensuring-Birth-Registration-for-the-Prevention-of-Statelessness.pdf
  • 19.Butt L, Ball J. Birth registration in Southeast Asia: a child’s foundation right? Asian Popul Stud. 2017;13(3):223–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dumrongkiat Mala. Migrants are still slow to register births. Bangkok Post [Internet]. 2018. August 24 [cited 2020 Jan 15]; Available from: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1527374/migrants-are-still-slow-to-register-births [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wang SH. Fetal citizens? Birthright citizenship, reproductive futurism, and the “panic” over Chinese birth tourism in southern California. Environ Plan Soc Space. 2016. November 21;35(2):263–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.de Jong L, Pavlova M, Winters M, Rechel B. A systematic literature review on the use and outcomes of maternal and child healthcare services by undocumented migrants in Europe. Eur J Public Health. 2017. October 31; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mae Tao Clinic. From Stateless to Registered [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://maetaoclinic.org/from-stateless-to-registered/

Decision Letter 0

Calistus Wilunda

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

9 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-29338

Choosing where to give birth: Factors influencing migrant women’s decision making in two regions of Thailand

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Jiraporncharoen,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 23 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Calistus Wilunda, DrPH

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

  2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

    Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

    Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

    We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

  3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified how verbal consent was documented and witnessed.

  4. Please consider discussing some of the potential bias introduced in your qualitative study.

  5. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Thank you for your attention to our queries.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please submit your revised manuscript alongside a COREQ checklist, or other relevant checklists listed by the Equator Network, such as the SRQR, to ensure complete reporting.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This study is provided data from the interviewing subjects. The author has a good system, well defined for the methodology and provide the data referred to the situation of health care and policy of the country.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper. There is a substantial amount of information missing from the Methods section that must be addressed, and methodological choices need to be more explicitly justified. The use of a tool such as the COREQ checklist (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/) might be helpful to the authors when they are writing up their Methods for qualitative papers in the future. Other than that, I have mostly minor revisions

1. Abstract: please include number of participants in Abstract.

2. Line 59: ‘local’ should be ‘locale’ or ‘location’

3. Line 94: Are you able to provide an approximate / average cost for this service?

4. Methods: Why did you choose focus group discussions to investigate this issue rather than interviews with women? What made FGDs the better choice?

5. Methods: Missing information about focus group facilitator: Who facilitated the focus group discussions? One of the authors? An independent facilitator? What was their experience / training / qualifications relevant to conducting FGDs? What were their characteristics? E.g. nationality / gender / languages spoken – could these have impacted how they interacted with participants / how participants interacted with them?

6. Methods: Missing info about interpreter: Who was the interpreter? Were they independent from the research team or part of research team? Were they known to the participants? Did they have experience / training in facilitating focus groups? What were their relevant characteristics that may have affected dynamic of focus group discussion?

7. How were participants recruited? Approached face to face? Flyers? Told about the study by health workers? Did you record if/how many refused to participate and why?

8. Did you sample purposively or use a convenience sample?

9. What’s the rationale behind your sample size?

10. Where were focus groups held? (i.e. physical location – heath facilities, community spaces, someone’s home, NGO offices?)

11. Was anyone else present during focus group discussions besides the participants and facilitators?

12. Please provide more information about your analysis process, specifically the coding. How many data coders were they? Did they develop a coding tree based on inductive analysis (in order to develop the “emergent themes” you mention in addition to your deductive themes).

13. Did participants or stakeholder provide feedback on your findings?

14. Who translated the audio files? Was this a member of the research team or an independent translator? Were they involved in the analysis? Was there any process of back translation or process to clarify meaning / identify linguistic nuances / identify cultural assumptions that may occur in the translation process?

15. Results: Much of the information in lines 180-186 would be better presented in a Table, rather than as descriptive text.

16. Line 209: The use of the words ‘significant difference’ here implies a statistical comparison has been performed. Use a synonym for significant, such as notable, meaningful, important.

17. Line 282: Please provide USD value of 30,000 baht

18. Discussion: Women in your study did not consider shared language to be a pressing concern, perhaps because they were mostly assured of being provided services in a language that they spoke, or being provided with a ‘bridging person.’ But is this in contrast or a similarity to other populations internationally? (e.g other migrant populations, indigenous and ethnic minorities) What is in the literature about choice of birth location and shared language /related concepts such as cultural safety?

**********

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: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOSone.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 2;15(4):e0230407. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230407.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Feb 2020

January 20, 2020

Re: PONE-D-19-29338

Choosing where to give birth: Factors influencing migrant women’s decision making in two regions of Thailand

Dear Calistus Wilunda, PLOS ONE academic editor,

Thank you for considering our manuscript. In this letter we provide a point by point response to your comments. We have also uploaded a manuscript with changes highlighted ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ and an unmarked version of the manuscript labeled ‘Manuscript’.

-----------

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We have reviewed the style requirements.

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Response: There are legal restrictions, specifically participant confidentiality, which restricts us from sharing the data.

Please update our data availability with the following statement “Our data is qualitative and contains identifying information. Data cannot be made publicly available for ethical reasons, as public availability would compromise patient confidentiality and participant privacy. Sharing excerpts of transcripts from this research would violate the agreement to which patients and key informants consented when they agreed to participate”.

We used this statement in a previous PLOS ONE publication.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified how verbal consent was documented and witnessed.

Response: We have updated the section to provide more details. See (Page 7, line 147-149), “At the beginning of each discussion, the facilitator and interpreter read the consent form out loud. Participants provided verbal consent and the facilitator signed the consent form to document that consent had been obtained”.

4. Please consider discussing some of the potential bias introduced in your qualitative study.

Response: Thanks for this query. Qualitative research often examines the nuances of rigour and trustworthiness of the research project and results in response to questions related to bias. To enhance our rigour for the study in the methods we utilized a semi-structured interview guide and more importantly asked participants to contribute to the analysis by ranking factors of importance themselves. We also sought to include migrants from different regions to enhance the robustness of our study. See page 22 lines 547-550, “Participants participated in the analysis by ranking the factors during the focus group which added to the robustness of the study. By including migrants from two different regions, with the inclusion of non-profit clinics and government hospitals, we are able to strengthen our study”. In the limitation section we also explain that our study did not include women who forwent antenatal care and only came to the hospital in an emergency, thereby contextualizing who was included and not included in the project.

We have updated the text to indicate the use of a semi-structured interview guide, (page 8, lines 176-178) “In each focus group, we utilized a semi-structured interview guide and asked women where they will go to give birth and to explain the factors that influenced their decision.”

5. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Response: We have moved the ethics statement to the methods section of the manuscript and have deleted it from the end of the article. See lines 210-215 on page 9.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please submit your revised manuscript alongside a COREQ checklist, or other relevant checklists listed by the Equator Network, such as the SRQR, to ensure complete reporting.

Response: We have included the elements of the COREQ checklist in our revised methods section (responding to the feedback from reviewer 2).

----------------------

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

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: No

Response: Due to ethical considerations, we cannot make our data publicly available. We have requested inclusion of the following statement, “Our data is qualitative and contains identifying information. Data cannot be made publicly available for ethical reasons, as public availability would compromise patient confidentiality and participant privacy. Sharing excerpts of transcripts from this research would violate the agreement to which patients and key informants consented when they agreed to participate”.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: This study is provided data from the interviewing subjects. The author has a good system, well defined for the methodology and provide the data referred to the situation of health care and policy of the country.

Response: Thank you for this feedback and for taking time to review our paper.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper. There is a substantial amount of information missing from the Methods section that must be addressed, and methodological choices need to be more explicitly justified. The use of a tool such as the COREQ checklist (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/) might be helpful to the authors when they are writing up their Methods for qualitative papers in the future.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion that we consider the COREQ checklist for future papers. We have provided more information in the Methods section in response to your comments, see responses 4-14 below for more information.

Other than that, I have mostly minor revisions

1. Abstract: please include number of participants in Abstract.

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have added the number on line 23 page 2.

2. Line 59: ‘local’ should be ‘locale’ or ‘location’

Response: Well received. We have updated this to “location” on page 3, line 59.

3. Line 94: Are you able to provide an approximate / average cost for this service?

Response: The cost for birth services at a Thai hospital would vary depending on type of services required ie. c-section vs. uncomplicated birth. Costs for the same services also vary between hospitals. For this reason, we are unable to provide an approximate/average cost.

4. Methods: Why did you choose focus group discussions to investigate this issue rather than interviews with women? What made FGDs the better choice?

Response: We chose focus group discussions as we were seeking group opinion on birth place decision making. Focus groups allow participants the opportunity to have a conversation together about a topic of interest. In addition, several of the authors in our paper had conducted other studies with migrant women in this setting and found that focus groups are better at soliciting input as women prefer to participate in groups rather than individually.

We have made the following addition on line 131-133 page 6, “In designing the study we opted to utilize focus groups as this method helps to facilitate conversations between participants, is culturally appropriate and has been successfully utilized by other studies with this population.”

5. Methods: Missing information about focus group facilitator: Who facilitated the focus group discussions? One of the authors? An independent facilitator? What was their experience / training / qualifications relevant to conducting FGDs? What were their characteristics? E.g. nationality / gender / languages spoken – could these have impacted how they interacted with participants / how participants interacted with them?

Response: The first author (NT) led the focus group discussion and another author (SN) provided interpretation support. Both have significant training and experience conducting focus group discussions. NT is a Canadian researcher, fluent in English and French who conducted her PhD fieldwork in Thailand. SN is fluent in English, Karen and Burmese and has been integral in implementing multiple community-based studies in the research setting. The section (line 149-157, page 7) now reads, “In the border area NT, a researcher with training in qualitative methods, lead the discussions and SN, a skilled community based researcher, provided interpretation to help facilitate the dialogue. NT speaks English, French and Thai and previously conducted her doctoral fieldwork in Thailand. SN is fluent in English, French, Thai, Karen and Burmese and has provided interpretation and facilitation support for multiple community-based studies in the research setting. In Chiang Mai, Kulyapa Yoonut lead the focus group discussions in Thai and SN provided primary interpretation with support for Shan language from an undergraduate university student. Ms. Yoonut is a Thai study nurse with focus group expertise”.

6. Methods: Missing info about interpreter: Who was the interpreter? Were they independent from the research team or part of research team? Were they known to the participants? Did they have experience / training in facilitating focus groups? What were their relevant characteristics that may have affected dynamic of focus group discussion?

Response: The interpreter SN was a member of the research team. We have provided the following information on her characteristics, “SN is fluent in English, French, Thai, Karen and Burmese and has provided interpretation and facilitation support for multiple community based studies in the research setting” (lines 153-155). A student assisted in translating from Thai to Shan. See previous answer for a full response.

7. How were participants recruited? Approached face to face? Flyers? Told about the study by health workers? Did you record if/how many refused to participate and why?

Response: We have added the following sentence, “Healthcare workers informed potential participants about the study and invited interested persons to meet at a specific time and location to join the discussion.” (lines 175-177, page 8). We did not record the number of participants who refused to participate or reasons for non-participation.

8. Did you sample purposively or use a convenience sample?

Response: We used convenience sampling and have now indicated this on page 8 line 173.

9. What’s the rationale behind your sample size?

We set out to have sufficient participants so that we could have separate group discussions based on gravidity, language and ethnicity. See updated sentence (page 8, line 173-174), “We utilized convenience sampling and where possible we attempted to create focus groups that included women similar in gravidity (primi and multi), language and ethnicity”.

10. Where were focus groups held? (i.e. physical location – heath facilities, community spaces, someone’s home, NGO offices?)

Response: We have added the following clarifying sentence (line 142-147, page 6-7) “All focus groups were held at health facilities in a quiet location, separate from where care was being provided”.

11. Was anyone else present during focus group discussions besides the participants and facilitators?

Response: Yes. See addition, “Members of the research team including CA, AH and a study assistant were present for some of the group discussions” (line 157-159, page 7).

12. Please provide more information about your analysis process, specifically the coding. How many data coders were they? Did they develop a coding tree based on inductive analysis (in order to develop the “emergent themes” you mention in addition to your deductive themes).

Response: See update on Page 8, line 191-193 “Using a coding frame initially comprised of the pre-identified themes, NT coded the data while continuously updating the frame to include emergent themes. Team members subsequently met to discuss the analysis”.

13. Did participants or stakeholder provide feedback on your findings?

Response: Due to the nature of our data collection, that we were collecting data from migrants who are mobile, we were not able to contact them to solicit feedback on our findings. However we met as a team to discuss the research findings. We have updated our methods section as follows (page 8, line 192) “Team members subsequently met to discuss the analysis”. We did however seek feedback from stakeholders, including key informants, on the development of a diagram of pathways to birth registration (Figure 1). This is included in the text, (page 9, lines 205-208) “Based on the data obtained from both focus group participants and key informants we developed a diagram of birth registration pathways (Figure 1). To further triangulate the data we verified our preliminary results with several key informants that we had interviewed as well as additional stakeholders knowledgeable about birth registration.”

14. Who translated the audio files? Was this a member of the research team or an independent translator? Were they involved in the analysis? Was there any process of back translation or process to clarify meaning / identify linguistic nuances / identify cultural assumptions that may occur in the translation process?

Response: An independent translator translated the audio files. We have updated the text (page 8, line 185-188) “Following the focus group discussions, all of the audio files were subsequently transcribed and translated into English by an independent translator.”

We did not do back translation, however a member of our team reviewed some of the audio files in cases where we needed to clarify meaning. We have added the following sentence (page 8, line 186-188), “In the case where we needed to clarify meaning or linguistic nuances, members of the research team fluent in languages used by participants reviewed segments of the audio file”.

15. Results: Much of the information in lines 180-186 would be better presented in a Table, rather than as descriptive text.

Response: We pulled the following sentence from the text “Of the 72 women ANC care was received by 54 at border sites and 18 at hospitals in Chiang Mai; while 27 were in their first pregnancy and 45 were having at least their second pregnancy” and included the information in a newly added table.

16. Line 209: The use of the words ‘significant difference’ here implies a statistical comparison has been performed. Use a synonym for significant, such as notable, meaningful, important.

Response: We have updated this to (page 11, line 255) “notable difference”.

17. Line 282: Please provide USD value of 30,000 baht

Response: Text updated. See page 14, line 330 “990 USD”.

18. Discussion: Women in your study did not consider shared language to be a pressing concern, perhaps because they were mostly assured of being provided services in a language that they spoke, or being provided with a ‘bridging person.’ But is this in contrast or a similarity to other populations internationally? (e.g other migrant populations, indigenous and ethnic minorities) What is in the literature about choice of birth location and shared language /related concepts such as cultural safety?

Response: Thank you for this query. Yes, this experience is different from what we find in the literature on concerns or barriers to care experienced by migrant women in other contexts. We have added a sentence further explaining that in the border region, Thai hospitals frequently have interpreters (page 21, line 524-525), “Thai hospitals in the border region frequently have Karen and Burmese interpreters, although they may have large caseloads”.

We have added the following sentence (pages 21-22, lines 530-532), “In contrast to other settings internationally communication challenges and gaps in healthcare coverage have been documented as difficulties for pregnant migrant women seeking healthcare (3).

We did not find any literature about choice of birth location and share language concepts like cultural safety that is specific to migrants. We hope that our study will help fill this gap.

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

We have revised our figure and uploaded it into PACE.

----------------

Final comments: We thank the reviewers and editor for providing feedback on our manuscript and look forward to the prospect of having it published in PLOS ONE in the near future.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Calistus Wilunda

2 Mar 2020

Choosing where to give birth: Factors influencing migrant women’s decision making in two regions of Thailand

PONE-D-19-29338R1

Dear Dr. Jiraporncharoen,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Calistus Wilunda, DrPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: 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

**********

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: Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my comments, I think the changes that you have made have considerably strengthened the paper, particularly the Methods. I have nothing further to add.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Calistus Wilunda

4 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-29338R1

Choosing where to give birth: Factors influencing migrant women’s decision making in two regions of Thailand

Dear Dr. Jiraporncharoen:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Calistus Wilunda

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: PLOSone.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Our data is qualitative and contains personally identifiable information. Making this data publicly available would compromise participant confidentiality and privacy. Sharing excerpts of transcripts would also violate the agreement to which patients and key informants consented when they agreed to participate. For these reasons data can not be shared. Our protocol, and the associated data sharing restrictions, was reviewed and approved by Research Ethics Committee 2 at the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University (FAM-2560-05204) and was reviewed and approved through the standard internal process at the Department of Community Medicine and Global Health, University of Oslo. We have also notified our project to the Data Protection Official for Research at NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data (58542).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES