Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Apr 30;15(4):e0232178. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232178

Physicians’ satisfaction with clinical laboratory services at public hospitals in Ethiopia: A national survey

Hiwot Amare Hailu 1,*, Anteneh Yalew 2,3, Adinew Desale 4, Habtamu Asrat 1, Sisay Kebede 1, Daniel Dejene 1, Hiwot Abebe 1, Andargachew Gashu 1, Birhan Moges 1, Nebiyou Yemanebrhane 1, Daniel Melese 1, Birhanu T Ayele 3, Adisu Kebede 1, Ebba Abate 1
Editor: Massimo Ciccozzi5
PMCID: PMC7192407  PMID: 32353001

Abstract

Introduction

Physician is a central figure in the client list of clinical laboratory. Monitoring physicians’ satisfaction with laboratory service is an important indicator of the quality management system and required by international laboratory standards. However, there is no national data on physician satisfaction with laboratory services in Ethiopia. Therefore, the aim of this national survey was to assess satisfaction level of physicians with laboratory services at public hospitals in Ethiopia.

Methods

Institutional based cross-sectional study design was employed from November 1-30/2017. A total of 327 physicians were randomly selected from 60 public hospitals from all regions of Ethiopia. Data was collected using pre-tested self-administered questionnaire and analyzed with SPSS version 23 software. Logistic regression model was fitted to identify predictors of physician satisfaction with laboratory services. A p-value of less than 0.05 was taken as statistically significant.

Results

Overall, 55% of physicians were satisfied with the clinical laboratory services. More than half of the physicians were satisfied with the existing laboratory request form (69%), legibility and completeness of laboratory report (61%), notification of new test (78%) and test interruption (70%). On the other hand, many physicians were dissatisfied with the absence of laboratory hand book (87.5%), the existing test menu (68%), lab-physician interface (62%), availability of referral and/or back up service (62%), notification of Turn Around Time (TAT) (54%), timely notification of panic result (55%), long TAT (33.1%), provision of urgent service (67%), and timely advisory service (57%). Most of the physicians perceived that consistent quality of service was not delivered at all working shifts (71%). At 5% level of significance, we did not find enough evidence to conclude that sex, age, marital status, education level, and experience were statistically associated with physician satisfaction (p-values > 0.05).

Conclusion

This national survey revealed nearly half of the physicians were unsatisfied with laboratory service at public hospitals in Ethiopia, which mainly related to lack of adequate test menu, laboratory hand book, on time notification of panic result, provision of urgent service, timely advisory service, delivery of quality services in all working shifts and weak lab-physician interface. Therefore, hospital management should address the gaps and improve the needs of physicians for better patient health care. In addition, laboratories should evaluate and monitor physician satisfaction level at regular interval.

Introduction

Medical laboratories are essential component and one of the most important departments at any healthcare services where medical tests and investigations are done in order to generate reliable and accurate information regarding patient's health [1]. Laboratory reports are usually the bases of medical decisions and possible management plans considered by physicians [2]. Medical laboratories have customers whose need should be addressed efficiently. Physicians, the principal client of medical laboratories initially request the services. Health care providers are expected to have access to accurate, clinically relevant information that can be understood and used in a timely manner [3].

Assuring a wide range of quality laboratory services is a challenging processes that need support from clients, clinical service providers, managers, laboratory professionals and other stakeholders. Several features of the laboratory services could be inspected from the perspective of physicians including, quality/reliability of test results, staff courtesy, accessibility of pathologist, accessibility of laboratory manager, phlebotomy services, test menu adequacy, accessibility of laboratory staff, courier services, routine test turnaround time (TAT), laboratory management responsiveness, inpatient stat test TAT, critical value notification, clinical report format, outpatient stat test TAT, and esoteric TAT [4]. Quality of laboratory results and adequate test menu remain the most important element for most physicians [5]. Physicians also need assurance of laboratory responsibility on test menu, accurate collection manual, requisition forms and assurance of working with competent personnel, validated method and good process control [3].

Previous studies showed that physicians’ request behavior and treatment interventions are influenced by the communication and interactions between laboratory and clinical health workers. Lack of communication is a barrier to effective healthcare service. Improved communication between laboratory and clinical health workers could have a positive attitude to request and use laboratory diagnostic services and, eventually, quality of patient care [6].

In clinical laboratory, monitoring customers’ satisfaction is an important indicator of the quality management system and required by laboratory quality standards, such as ISO 15189: 2012. Satisfaction is a judgment given by people that reflect their experience under specific circumstances, not a pre-existing phenomenon waiting to be measured [7]. It is a perception and an attitude that a customer can have or view towards a total experience of health care services [8]. Physicians’ opinions are essential components in providing laboratory managers with opportunities to identify areas for improvement [4]. Various studies investigated satisfaction of the primary healthcare providers (physicians) of laboratory services to identify possible limitations for future development [4, 8, 9].

Clinical laboratories are expected to assess physicians’ satisfaction with clinical laboratory services to improve the service. However, there has no national level information or data related to physicians’ satisfaction in Ethiopia. Therefore, this study aimed to assess physicians’ satisfaction with clinical laboratory services in public hospitals of Ethiopia. The findings might be useful to design and implement measures to improve the quality of clinical laboratory services.

Materials and methods

Study design and area

The institutional based cross-sectional study design was conducted from November 1 to 30, 2017. Based on the 2017 prediction report, Ethiopia has a total population of 94,351,001 and about 80% of the population lives in rural areas. According to the 2016 Ethiopian Minister of Health report, there were 189 government hospitals with functional laboratory service, 3547 public health centers and 16447 health posts in Ethiopia. The physician to population ratio was 1:17160 [10]. These health facilities provide different clinical and laboratory services to the community. Each hospital laboratory provides different services that include ART monitoring, microbiology, parasitology, serology, electrolyte, hormone analysis, and others tests.

Study population

All physicians, who were on duty during the data collection period, were the study population.

Sample size and sampling procedure

The required sample size of physicians was determined by the following formula:

n=deft2(1/p1)α2

Where, p is the assumed value of the population proportion of the underlying variable defining the main indicator of the survey coverage. The proportion of physician’s satisfaction with laboratory services was 50% according to a study done at selected hospitals in eastern Ethiopia [11], deff is the design effect. Design effect of 2 was used in this survey, α is the specified relative standard error equals to 0.08 physicians, at 95% confidence level and it’s a good relative precision of the indicator at domain estimate level [12]), and response rate is the expected response rate of the survey was 90% for customer survey and as individual response rate.

Accordingly, the required sample size was 348 physicians from 60 hospitals. Allocation of the total sample sizes to the regions and hospital types was considered. Since some regions and hospital types are few in size, we applied a power allocation to guarantee a sufficient sample size in small regions and hospital types in size.

Data collection procedures

Data was collected using a pre-tested, structured and a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was pre-tested in similar settings which were not included in the study. The questionnaire contained socio-demographic characteristics, courtesy of the laboratory staff, test availability, critical value notification, courier service, the reliability of test results, provision of timely test results and others variables.

Data quality assurance

Data collectors and supervisors were trained on how to select study participants and collect data. In-order to identify and solve the confusing points, we had pre-tested the questionnaire prior to the actual survey with pilot sites. The number of participants in pre-test was 33 (10%). They were recruited from four towns, one public hospital from each town. Regular supervision, spot checking and reviewing the completed questionnaire was carried out daily by regional supervisors. Double entry of 15% of the data was carried out.

Data entry and analysis

Data were entered using Epi Info version 7.2 and analyzed using SPSS version 23. Descriptive statistics were computed to describe data. A 5-point Likert scale rating of very dissatisfied (1-point), dissatisfied (2-points), neutral (3-points), satisfied (4-points) and very satisfied (5-point) was used. The mean score of satisfaction for each participant was calculated as the average of all satisfaction items. A mean score of 3 and less than 3 was taken as an indicator of participants’ perceived dissatisfaction and a score of more than 3 was taken as the participant was satisfied.

Binary logistic regression model was fitted to identify predictors of physicians’ satisfaction with laboratory services. Those variables significant at a p-value of 0.20 in the univariate analysis were included in multiple regression model. A p-value of less than 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to identify factors affecting physicians’ satisfaction level of laboratory customers.

Ethical consideration

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Scientific and Ethical Review Committee (SERC) of the Ethiopian Public Health Institution (EPHI). An official permission letter was delivered to the respective regional health bureaus by EPHI during the field work. The facility administration was informed about the general objective and significance of the study through an official letter. Data were collected anonymously. For the purpose of data collection, the aim of the study was explained, and written informed consent was obtained from study participants before administering the questions. All participants were informed of their right to refuse the participation at any time.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of physicians

Three hundred forty-eight survey questionnaires were distributed, and 327 were collected. This makes the response rate was 94%. These physicians selected from 60 public hospitals in Ethiopia and 78.9% of them were male, and 42.5% were married. The median age and interquartile range of the participants were 29 and (27–32) years, respectively. Nearly, 68% of the participants had less than five years’ experience and 10% of them were specialist in a different discipline (Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of socio-demographic characteristics of respondents at public hospitals in Ethiopia, November 2017.

Characteristics Number (n = 327) Percent
Sex
Male 258 78.9
Female 69 21.1
Age Group
24–29 183 56.0
30–40 130 39.8
>40 14 4.3
Marital Status
Single 188 57.5
Married 139 42.5
Educational Status
MD 292 89.3
Specialized 35 10.7
Experience (years)
1–4 223 68.2
≥5 104 31.8

MD = Medical Doctor

Overall satisfaction level of physicians

Overall, 55% of the participated physicians were satisfied with the services provided by public hospital laboratories. More than half of the participants were satisfied with existing laboratory request form, legibility and completeness of laboratory report, notification of new test and test interruption. On the other hand, they were dissatisfied with the availability of lab handbook, availability of test menu, availability of referral or back up service, notification of TAT, notification of panic result, provision of urgent service with a timely fashion, timely advisory/expert service and quality of service in all working shifts.

Physicians' satisfaction with laboratory services

As depicted in Table 3, 86.2% of the study participants were satisfied with the presence of laboratory staff at the workstation during the working hour. The finding showed 87.5% of the physicians did not receive the laboratory handbook from the laboratory. Regarding the laboratory request form, 69.42% of the physicians were comfortable and satisfied with the current request form. Most of the respondents (67.89%) were dissatisfied with the available laboratory tests to manage their patients. Nearly thirty-eight percent of the physicians had the opportunity for laboratory services with referral and/or back up laboratories. Out of these participants, 59.5% of them were comfortable with the backup services (see Tables 2 & 3).

Table 3. Satisfaction level of physicians with different components of laboratory services at the public hospital in Ethiopia, November 2017.
Characteristics Dissatisfied number (%) Satisfied number (%)
Timely expert/advisory service of the lab staff 186 (56.88) 141(43.12)
Laboratory’s ability to resolve complaints 188(57.49) 139(42.51)
Laboratory’s request form 100(30.6) 227(69.4)
Existing test menu 222(67.89) 105(32.11)
Legibility and completeness of laboratory report 127 (38.84) 200(61.16)
Provision of urgent services in a timely fashion 219(67.0) 108(33.0)
Lab-clinical interface 204(62.39) 123(37.61)
Satisfaction with the assistance of the handbook 12(29.26) 29 (70.74)
Table 2. Participants’ frequency and percentage distribution of laboratory services at selected public hospitals in Ethiopia, November 2017.
Characteristics Number (n = 327) Percent
Availability of updated Laboratory handbook
No 286 87.5
Yes 41 12.5
Presence of lab personnel at bench work
No 45 13.8
Yes 282 86.2
Availability of backup/referral Service (222)
No 138 62.16
Yes 84 37.84
Comfortable with backup service (84)
No 34 40.50
Yes 50 59.50
Availability of TAT of available tests in your work area
No 176 53.8
Yes 151 46.2
Receive laboratory report within agreed TAT (n = 151)
No 50 33.1
Yes 101 66.9
Immediate notification of panic results
No 181 55.4
Yes 146 44.6
Notification during new tests are introduced
No 73 22.3
Yes 254 77.7
On time notification during test interruption
No 98 30
Yes 229 70

Physicians and laboratory communication

Regarding the lab-physician interface, nearly 38% of the physicians were satisfied with the interaction they have with laboratory personnel. Physicians were also satisfied with on time notification of a newly interoduced test (77.7%), test interruption (70%) and panic results (44.6%) by the laboratory. The survey result also indicated that 33% of the participants were dissatisfied with the provision of urgent services in a timely fashion. In addition, 43% of the participants were satisfied with the timely laboratory expert advisory service, and 42.5% of them had a positive perception for the laboratory’s ability to resolve their complaints (see Tables 2 and 3).

Physicians’ satisfaction with laboratory report

Forty-six percent of the participants had posted turnaround time of each laboratory tests, out of them, 67% received the laboratory report with in the established turnaround time. In addition, 61% of the participants were satisfied with the legibility and completeness of laboratory reports. Seventy-one percent (232) of the participated physicians perceived that laboratory services did not have the same quality in all working shifts (day, night, holiday and weekend). Out of them, 12.5% were doubtful of the quality of the laboratory services at any time whereas 87.5% of them did not trust the quality of the laboratory services done during the over-time (night, holiday, weekend).

Factors affecting satisfaction of physicians

Bivariate logistic regression was used to identify possible explanatory variables, those variables with a p-value of less than 0.20, were taken to multiple binary logistic regression model. As a result, sex (P = 0.10), age (P = 0.22), marital status (P = 0.32), educational status (P = 0.14) and experience (P = 0.97) were not significantly associated with physician overall satisfaction level with laboratory services (see Table 4).

Table 4. Association of independent variables with a satisfaction level of physicians at selected public hospitals in Ethiopia, November 2017.

Characteristics Physician satisfaction COR (95%CI) AOR (95%CI) P-value
Dissatisfied Satisfied
Sex
Male 122 136 1.6(0.9, 2.7) 1.6(0.91, 2.81) 0.10
Female 25 44 1 1
Age group
24–29 78 105 0.7(0.2, 2.3) 0.39
30–40 64 66 0.6(0.2. 1.8)
>40 5 9 1
Marital status
Single 81 107 1 1
Married 66 73 1.19(0.77, 1.86) 1.29(0.77, 2.16) 0.32
Edu. status
MD 127 165 1 1
Specialized 20 15 1.73(0.85, 3.52) 1.84(0.82, 4.15) 0.14
Experience (yr)
1–4 100 123 1 1
≥5 47 57 1.01 (0.63, 1.62) 1.01(0.51, 2.01) 0.97

Discussion

Physicians are primary customers of hospital laboratory and their perception of the provided services is critical for improvement and quality service. Satisfaction survey is one of the means for them to express concerns about the services received, and to express their views about the services that need improvement. Hence, the present national survey tries to assess the physicians’ satisfaction with laboratory services at public hospitals in Ethiopia.

In this national survey, 55% of the physicians were satisfied with the services provided by public hospital laboratories. This overall satisfaction rate is nearly similar with reports from St. Paulo’s Hospital Millennium Medical College (60%), University of Gondar Hospital (51.5%), Pusan National University Hospital (58.1%), and Saudi Arabia (53.3%) [13, 14, 15, 2]. It is lower than findings from Nekemte Referral Hospital (65%), and selected hospitals in eastern part of Ethiopia (80%), and College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 81 Institutions in 2016 [16, 11, 5]. The difference may be due to difference in participants and sample size. In our study, all study participants were physicians however in the other studies, participants were health care providers (nurses, health officers, physicians).

The interaction between physicians and laboratory personnel is mandatory for better patient health care. They may communicate face-to-face or by request and report, memos, standard operating procedures, manuals, phone calls, text messages, e-mails or computerized system. In this study, most of physicians were satisfied with legibility and completeness of laboratory test report (61.16%), notification of new test introduction (77.70%), notification of test interruption due to different reasons (70%) and availability of standard laboratory request form (69.42%). Previous studies have identified lack of communication as a barrier to effective healthcare [6, 17, 18, 19, 20]. Improved communication between clinicians and laboratory workers is essential to changing clinicians’ attitudes about the reliability of diagnostic tests, possibly leading to increased use of laboratory diagnostics and, ultimately, improving patient care [6].

Physicians need a wide range of test menu in the laboratory to manage their patients. In the current study, nearly 67.89% of the physicians were dissatisfied with the existing test menu in the laboratory. This finding showed services provided by public hospital laboratories were not adequate to fulfill expectations of the physicians. This finding was supported by reports from Tanzanya, Egypt and Korea. Previous studies conducted in Gondar University hospital, and Nekemte referral hospital in Ethiopia showed that physicians perceived that the existing test menu was not adequate [21, 22, 15, 14, 16].

Physicians need updated laboratory handbook that is complete and user-friendly. This study showed 87.5% of physicians did not have laboratory handbook. It is an ISO requirment that the laboratory should have information available for users and patients of the laboratory services though laboratory hand book. It provides information about the location of the laboratory, list of tests, working hours of the laboratory, sample collection and handling requirements, biological reference intervals, instructions for completion of the request form, the laboratory’s criteria for accepting and rejecting samples etc [23].

Additionally, the finding showed nearly 30.6% of the physicians were dissatisfied with the current available laboratory request form. The request form is the major means of communication between the health care provider and the laboratory. Therefore, the design of the request form must have sufficient space to support this communication. It has been allowed to provide the necessary information that include patient identification, name or other unique identifier of clinician who request examination, clinically relevant information about the patient and the request, for examination performance and result interpretation purposes, date and, where relevant, time of primary sample collection, and date and time of sample receipt [23].

Critical value intervals have been established in accordance with published information and physician are notified immediately when examination results fall within established alert or critical intervals. In this study, 55.4% of the physicians were not notified the panic result timely, and 30.89% of physicians were not provided the urgent services with a timely fashion. In addition, nearly 54% of the respondents were not aware about turnaround time of each tests performed by the laboratories. Turnaround time is one of the most noticeable signs of laboratory service and is used by many physicians to judge the quality of the laboratory. Previous studies from Tanzania, Alexanderia, Korea, Gondar University Hospital, Nekemte referral hospital and selected hospitals in east Ethiopia region, and College of American Pathologists reported similar finding that physicians were not satisfied with timely notification of panic results and provision of urgent services in a timely fashion [21, 22, 15, 14, 16, 18, 5]. The issue of ineffective communication between physicians and laboratory staff on patient care remains unresolved, therefore, there is a need of active communication between laboratory and physicians in any case of patient care activities.

The current study also showed that 71% of physicians’ perceived quality of laboratory service was inconsistent in all working shifts. This finding was consistent with reports from Tanzania, Alexanderia, Gondar University Hospital, Nekemte referral hospital, and selected hospitals in east Ethiopia region [21, 22, 14, 16, 18].

Overall, none of the socio-demographic characteristics of the physicians had statistically significant association with overall satisfaction. This findings go in line with a study from Egypt where the level of physician satisfaction was unrelated to age, gender, specialty, and work experience [24].

In Ethiopia, medical laboratories in public hospitals are directed by laboratory professionals. Laboratory personnel get the required technical and managerial trainings and assessed their competency regularly based ISO 15189:2012 requirements.

Limitation

This study did not use open ended questionnaire to grasp additional information about laboratory services. In addition, it did not included the satisfaction of physicians working in the private health facilities. It also lacks other laboratory customers’ satisfaction level.

Conclusion

This nationwide survey report showed that nearly half of physicians were not satisfied with the services provided by public hospital laboratories. Lack of laboratory handbook, inadequate test menu, lack of on time notification of panic result and provision of urgent service with a timely fashion, lack of timely advisory/expert service and inconsistent quality of service in all working shifts contributed to the observed low satisfaction rate. Hospital laboratory actions should meet the needs of physicians that include the identified gaps. The communication between physicians and laboratory personnel should be strengthened as well as the laboratory should conduct regular satisfaction survey to identify, improve and provide feedback for continuous quality service improvement. In addition, other responsible bodies in each level should act on the identified gaps and improve the need of physicians in each hospital laboratory.

This national survey is first of its kind in Ethiopia and provided credible evidence that might be used to improve the quality of laboratory service and enhancing physicians’ satisfaction. Finding of this study might serve as a baseline data for any intervention designed to improve the quality of laboratory service in the country.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge EPHI management for their follow up and support, all regional laboratories, EPHI quality improvement and accreditation team, all survey participants, the field staff who involved in data collection and supervision for the crucial roles played in achieving the survey goal.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

ADL is employed by and receives salary from IBEX Biotech Ltd. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hassemer DJ. Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene’s role in clinical laboratory improvement. WMJ. 2003; 102: 56–59. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rana G. Zaini1 and Rania G. Zaini. Physician's Satisfaction from Laboratory Services in Maternity and Children Hospital in Makkah. Int J Lab Med Res 2015; 1: 101. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Laboratory quality management system: a handbook. World Health Organization 2011, SBN 978 92 4 154827 4 (NLM Classification: QY 25) Version 1.1.
  • 4.Bruce JA, Bekeris LG, Raouf E. Nakhleh, Walsh MK, et al. Physician Satisfaction with Clinical Laboratory Services: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 138 Institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133: 38–43. 10.1043/1543-2165-133.1.38 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.McCall Shannon J., Souers Rhona J., Blond Barbara, Massie Larry. Physician Satisfaction with Clinical Laboratory Services. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016; 140: 1098–1103; 10.5858/arpa.2015-0486-CP [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Petti CA, Polage CR, Quinn TC, et al. Laboratory medicine in Africa: a barrier to effective health care. Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42(3):377–382. 10.1086/499363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.The Health Boards Executive Measurement of patient satisfaction guideline 2. Health Strategy Implementation Project. 2003; Ireland, p 37.
  • 8.Ware JE Jr, Davies-Avery A, Stewart AL. The measurement and meaning of patient satisfaction. Health Med Care Serv Rev. 1978; 1(1):3–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tuijn CJ, Msoka E, Mushi DL, Sumari-de Boer M, et al. The interface between clinicians and laboratory staff: A field study in northern Tanzania. Afr J Lab Med. 2014; 3(1):7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. Health sector development programme IV. Annual performance report. Version 1. EFY 2007 (2014/15).
  • 11.Teklemariam Z, Mekonnen A, Kedir H, et al. Clients and clinician satisfaction with laboratory services at selected government hospitals ineastern Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes 2013; 6: 15 10.1186/1756-0500-6-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kish L. Survey Sampling. New York: (1965). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Addisu GY, Rozina A, Melkayehu K. Assessments of patient and health care workers satisfaction on the laboratory services in St. Paul’s hospital millennium medical college, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Int J Sci Rep. 2017; 3(7):192–199. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Addis Zelalem, Birhan Wubet, Derseh Dejene et al. Physicians’ and Nurses’ Satisfaction with the Clinical Laboratory Service of Gondar University Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. Am J Clin Pathol. 2013; 140:324–328. 10.1309/AJCPU1PLVOIN5JQI [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Koh Young Rae, Kim Shine Young, Kim In Suk, et al. Customer Satisfaction Survey with Clinical Laboratory and Phlebotomy Services at a Tertiary Care Unit Level. Ann Lab Med. 2014; 34:380–385. 10.3343/alm.2014.34.5.380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ej Eyasu, Ta Geleta, De Mikias, et al. Health care Provider Satisfaction with Laboratory Service of Nekemte Referral Hospital. Int. J. Med. Med. Sci. 2015; 7(5): 91–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chilundo B, Sundby J, Aanestad M. Analysing the quality of routine malaria data in Mozambique. Malaria Journal. 2004; 3:3 10.1186/1475-2875-3-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Leshabari MT, Muhondwa EP, Mwangu MA, et al. Motivation of health care workers in Tanzania: a case study of Muhumbili National Hospital. East Afr J Public Health. 2008; 5(1):32–37. 10.4314/eajph.v5i1.38974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Manongi RN, Marchant TC, Bygbjerg IC. Improving motivation among primary health care workers in Tanzania: a health worker perspective. Hum Resour Health. 2006; 4:6 10.1186/1478-4491-4-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Garcia P, Hughes J, Carcamo C, et al. Training pharmacy workers in recognition, management, and prevention of STDs: district-randomized controlled trial. Bull World Health Organ. 2003; 81(11):806–814. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mfinanga SG, Kahwa A, Kiaro G et al. Dissatisfaction with laboratory service in conducting HIV related testing among public and private medical personnel in Tanzania. BMC health serv. Res. 2008; 8:171 10.1186/1472-6963-8-171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Elhoseeny Ta, Mohammad EK. Quality of the clinical laboratory department in a sepecialized hospital in Alexandria, Egypt. EMHJ. 2013; 19(1):81–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.International Standard (ISO 15189); Medical Laboratories-Requirements for quality and competency, 3rd edition, 2012-11-01.
  • 24.Almatrafi Daliah, Altaweel Najwa, Abdelfattah Mona et al. Assessment of Customer Satisfaction with the Clinical Laboratory Services Provided in King Abdullah Medical City, Makkah. EJHM. 2018; 70 (11): 2029–2037. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Massimo Ciccozzi

9 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-27181

Physicians’ Satisfaction with Clinical Laboratory Services at Public Hospitals in Ethiopia: A National Survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Hiwot Amare

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 31/01/2020. 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,

Massimo Ciccozzi

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.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests:

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study : IBEX Biotech Ltd.

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Additionally, please provide details about the pretesting of this questionnaire - i.e. how many participants were involved and from where were they recruited?

4. Please ensure you have thoroughly discussed any limitation of this study within the Discussion section.

5. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.scribd.com/document/377881161/lqms-en-pdf

http://www.ajrbps.com/article/PHYSICIANS%E2%80%99%20SATISFACTION%20WITH%20LABORATORY%20SERVICES%20AT%20KING%20FAISAL%20HOSPITAL%20IN%20MAKKAH,%20SAUDI%20ARABIA.pdf

https://ajlmonline.org/index.php/ajlm/article/view/126

The text that needs to be addressed involves large parts of the Introduction.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

6. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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 is an important study that has the potential to lead to significant, directed improvements in Laboratory Services in Ethiopia.

Some revisions would strengthen the paper and are necessary for a better understanding of the methodology and results.

1. The authors present data for n=327 physicians but they do not indicate the total number of surveys that were distributed and the overall response rate. The study population is listed as 'all physicians who were on duty at the data collection period" but a specific number should be included. How many surveys were distributed? What was the response rate? Was 100% participation mandated by the 'regional supervisors?' Additional information is needed to clarify this. Previous studies suggest that response rates to surveys can be quite low (30%). In their formula, the authors included a response rate of 90% but this was presented as a constant included in the equation - it is unclear if this represents the actual experienced response rate. This entire section should be clarified. In addition, the explanation of the equation for required sample size needs revision. deft^2=deff=2 is unclear.

2. References 4 and 8 are the same paper.

3. The authors have omitted or chosen not to include Larry Massie's group study of physician satisfaction surveys from 2016 in their reference list. This is the follow up paper to the paper the authors list as reference 4/8.

4. The inclusion of marital status for the physicians seems unlikely to be related to their perception of laboratory quality. It is unclear why this demographic was included.

5. The authors should include in the discussion information about how laboratories are directed in Ethiopia. Are they run by physicians or laboratory professionals? What specific training is required for staff and leadership? Could the current study be compared to other results of physician satisfaction based on the training level of the staff and leadership in the laboratory?

6. There are many grammatical errors in this manuscript that will require revision prior to publication. For example, there are five grammatical errors in the abstract's "Introduction" three-sentence paragraph.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

even though the article is well done from a statistical point of view, the aim and the results of the article is more focused on clinician's satisfaction of the hospital rather than to give useful information for the international scientific community. I am not questioning the quality of the article (that is well-written) but the topic that is not internationally relevant and is more focused of clinician satisfaction than on the patients' care quality, so I suggest you to choose a different journal. If you don't agree with the review and there is something that you think I have not considered please fell free to let me know so we can discuss it together.

thank you so much for the opportunity to read your work

**********

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.

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 30;15(4):e0232178. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232178.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Feb 2020

Response to Reviewers:

Title: Physicians’ satisfaction with clinical Laboratory Services at Public Hospitals in Ethiopia: A National Survey

Dear Prof Massimo Ciccozzi, Academic Editor;

Thank you for your giving us the chance to address comments from our reviewers. We appreciate the constructive comments from our two reviewers. We addressed the key concerns and tried to provide point-by-point replies.

For Editor Comments

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.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

• We have revised the manuscript based on the PLOS ONE's style requirements and amend the title, authors, and affiliations in the first page as well as level 1, 2, and 3 headings of the main body.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests:

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study: IBEX Biotech Ltd.

• Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, Mr. Adino was working for the Ethiopian Public Health Institute at the time the survey was conducted. He left after the data collection was finalized. Currently, he is working for IBEX Biotech Ltd. There is no any commercial funders for this study.

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

• The funder of this study, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, provided support in the form of salaries for authors [HAH, AY, AD, HA, SK, HA, AG, BM, NY, DM, BA, AK and EA], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

• There is no any update.

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

• We have developed the questionnaire for this survey so we include the questionnaire as supporting information.

Additionally, please provide details about the pretesting of this questionnaire - i.e. how many participants were involved and from where were they recruited?

• The following clarification is included in the revised manuscript. “In-order to identify and solve the confusing points, we had pre-tested the questionnaire prior to the actual survey with pilot sites. The number of participants in pre-test was 33 (10%). They were recruited from four towns, one public hospital from each town.”

• It is addressed under the topic of Methods/data collection and data quality assurance.

4. Please ensure you have thoroughly discussed any limitation of this study within the Discussion section.

• Dear editors, we have included the limitation of this study under the discussion section of the revised manuscript.

5. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.scribd.com/document/377881161/lqms-en-pdf

http://www.ajrbps.com/article/PHYSICIANS%E2%80%99%20SATISFACTION%20WITH%20LABORATORY%20SERVICES%20AT%20KING%20FAISAL%20HOSPITAL%20IN%20MAKKAH,%20SAUDI%20ARABIA.pdf

https://ajlmonline.org/index.php/ajlm/article/view/126

The text that needs to be addressed involves large parts of the Introduction.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

• We have revised and corrected the overlapping texts and cited all of our resources in the revised version of the manuscript.

6. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

• We have amend the title on the manuscript as “Physicians’ satisfaction with clinical Laboratory services at Public Hospitals in Ethiopia: A National Survey”

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

For Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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 is an important study that has the potential to lead to significant, directed improvements in Laboratory Services in Ethiopia.

Some revisions would strengthen the paper and are necessary for a better understanding of the methodology and results.

1. The authors present data for n=327 physicians but they do not indicate the total number of surveys that were distributed and the overall response rate. The study population is listed as 'all physicians who were on duty at the data collection period" but a specific number should be included. How many surveys were distributed? What was the response rate? Was 100% participation mandated by the 'regional supervisors?' Additional information is needed to clarify this. Previous studies suggest that response rates to surveys can be quite low (30%). In their formula, the authors included a response rate of 90% but this was presented as a constant included in the equation - it is unclear if this represents the actual experienced response rate. This entire section should be clarified. In addition, the explanation of the equation for required sample size needs revision. deft^2=deff=2 is unclear.

• Thank you for the valuable comment. The estimated total number of physicians in public hospitals was 4204. Three hundred forty-eight survey questionnaires were distributed, and 327 were collected. This makes the response rate was 94%. Response rate for surveys can be quite low but previous studies conducted in Ethiopia among Physicians reported response rates as high as 90%.

• Thanks for pointing this out. deff represent the design effect, which is an adjustment for the stratified sampling method used in this study.

2. References 4 and 8 are the same paper.

• Dear reviewer, thank you for pointing this out. You are right the two references are the same. We updated this in the revised manuscript.

3. The authors have omitted or chosen not to include Larry Massie's group study of physician satisfaction surveys from 2016 in their reference list. This is the follow up paper to the paper the authors list as reference 4/8.

• Thanks for the suggestion. We included the Larry Massie's group study of 2016 as reference 5 in the new revised manuscript.

4. The inclusion of marital status for the physicians seems unlikely to be related to their perception of laboratory quality. It is unclear why this demographic was included.

• We fully agree. None of the socio-demographic characteristics including marital status are not associated with physicians’ satisfaction level. However, we presented all the findings as a resource to our readers.

5. The authors should include in the discussion information about how laboratories are directed in Ethiopia. Are they run by physicians or laboratory professionals? What specific training is required for staff and leadership? Could the current study be compared to other results of physician satisfaction based on the training level of the staff and leadership in the laboratory?

• Dear reviewer, we included clarification on how laboratories are directed in Ethiopia in the last paragraph of discussion section of the revised manuscript.

In Ethiopia, medical laboratories in public hospitals are directed by laboratory professionals not physicians. Quality management system, leadership, assigned work processes and procedures, applicable laboratory information system, health and safety, including the prevention or containment of the effects of adverse incidents, ethics, and confidentiality of patient information are provided to laboratory professionals.

The current study did not evaluate physicians’ satisfaction with training and leadership status of laboratory professionals.

6. There are many grammatical errors in this manuscript that will require revision prior to publication. For example, there are five grammatical errors in the abstract's "Introduction" three-sentence paragraph.

• Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your contractive comment. We thoroughly revise the manuscript for grammatical errors.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

even though the article is well done from a statistical point of view, the aim and the results of the article is more focused on clinician's satisfaction of the hospital rather than to give useful information for the international scientific community. I am not questioning the quality of the article (that is well-written) but the topic that is not internationally relevant and is more focused of clinician satisfaction than on the patients' care quality, so I suggest you to choose a different journal. If you don't agree with the review and there is something that you think I have not considered please fell free to let me know so we can discuss it together.

thank you so much for the opportunity to read your work

• Dear reviewer, thanks for reading our manuscript and your comments.

• We still believe that this could be of an interest to the international scientific community as it provides useful information on clinician’s satisfaction in resource-limited settings. Clinician’s satisfaction plays a significant role in patient’s care quality and improving the health care. Understanding clinician’s level of satisfaction and factors affecting it might help to improve health care. Hope this convince our reviewer to reconsider his/her decision.

________________________________________

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

Decision Letter 1

Massimo Ciccozzi

9 Apr 2020

Physicians’ Satisfaction with Clinical Laboratory Services at Public Hospitals in Ethiopia: A National Survey

PONE-D-19-27181R1

Dear Dr. Hiwot Amare Hailu,

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,

Massimo Ciccozzi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Massimo Ciccozzi

20 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-27181R1

Physicians’ Satisfaction with Clinical Laboratory Services at Public Hospitals in Ethiopia: A National Survey

Dear Dr. Hailu:

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

Prof Massimo Ciccozzi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (DOCX)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES