Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 May 7;15(5):e0232908. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232908

Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Goffa zone, Southern Ethiopia

Mark Mergia 1,#, Mulugeta Shegaze 2,#, Gistane Ayele 2,#, Eshetu Andarge 2,#, Yordanos Gizachew Yeshitila 3,*,#, Biresaw Wassihun 4,, Abayneh Tunje 2,, Peter Memiah 5,
Editor: Nülüfer Erbil6
PMCID: PMC7205287  PMID: 32379820

Abstract

Background

Providing compassionate and respectful maternity services in order to bring satisfaction to service users is one of the health extension services packages in Ethiopia. Though the service utilization and its associated factors have been well documented so far, yet there is a dearth of information on client satisfaction; particularly among rural women who are mostly the target groups of health extension services within the Ethiopia. Thus, this study aimed to assess mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in the Gamo Goffa Zone, of Southern Ethiopia.

Methods

A community based cross sectional study was conducted among 478 women from February 1st to February 28th of 2018. A pre-tested and interviewer administered questionnaire was used to collect the data. The study participants were selected using a systematic random sampling technique by allocating a proportion to each rural kebeles. Both bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify associated factors. Odds ratio with its 95% confidence interval was used to determine the degree of association. Level of statistical significance was set at a p-value of less than 0.05.

Result

The overall proportion of mothers who were satisfied with health extension services was 37.4% with 95% CI (33–44%). Mothers who had good family monthly income [AOR = 4.66 (95% CI: 1.1, 20.6)], whose husbands participated in the health extension program [AOR = 4.02 (95% CI: 2.0, 8.1)], who had recent participation in planning of health extension programs [AOR = 5.75 (95% CI: 2.0, 16.5)], who were recognized as a model family [AOR = 2.23 (95% CI: 1.1, 4.6)] had higher odds of satisfaction with health extension services.

Conclusion

Satisfaction with the health extension services was low among women in the study area. A better household monthly income, women’s and their husbands’ participation in health extension services and being a member of a model family were positively associated with their satisfaction. Interventions to enhance women’s satisfaction in the health extension service need to focus on household-based involvement of them and their husbands in planning and implementing the services. Likewise, expansion of experiences of model families in the community would raise satisfaction levels.

Introduction

Client satisfaction is one of the excellent ways that enables health programs to assess the impact of their services. Satisfied clients are likely to come back for the services they need and to recommend the services to others [1,2]. Maternal satisfaction refers to the mother's positive evaluation of distinct dimensions of health care [3,4]. More than 85 percent of Ethiopians reside in rural areas which are difficult to access by the health professionals. Compared to the global average, Ethiopia has several poor key health outcome indicators. Rates of death attributed to preventable and avoidable causes of diseases is still high in Ethiopia. A considerable number of children and mothers are still dying due to failures in reaching them with high impact interventions [5, 6].

Health Extension Program (HEP) is a ground-breaking community-based program that was started in Ethiopia in 2003 as a response of the Alma- Ata conference [7]. Under an enormous countrywide drive, over 38,000 rural Health Extension Workers (HEWs) have been deployed over 15,000 health posts (HPs) (with a catchment area population of 5,000 on average) [8]. The HEWs are providing basic health services to mothers and members of the community in rural area for facilitating closer contact between the health workers and the communities [9, 10]. The program involves encouraging women’s participation in decision-making processes and promotes community empowerment [11,12]. Its philosophy is based on transferring the right knowledge and skills to the households so that they can take the responsibility for realizing and keeping their own health. [13]. In the last decade, incredible gains have been registered in terms of improving access and utilization of maternal services such as increasing contraceptive acceptance rate, focused antenatal care (FANC), skilled birth attendance, improved health seeking behavior, expanding vaccination services, malaria control and prevention, and reduction of HIV infections [14,5].

As per studies, a positive relationship between clients and providers is central to any health service delivery system. Thus, a low satisfaction of mothers implies a gap between current experiences and their expectation from the services that would finally lead them to move away to distant public health facilities or costly private health facilities by the essence of seeking for quality healthcare services [1517]. In Africa, clients´ satisfaction with health care services is one of the most important factors determining the utilization of the services. So, assessment of mothers’ satisfaction with health extension service is crucial to measure maternal service utilization [1821].

It has been suggested that health extension services improve the overall health care system in Ethiopia. Despite the expansion in the implementation of preventive and curative health services in Ethiopia, the maternal mortality ratio is still high at 412 out of 100,000 live births in 2016 [6]. Majority of the HEP packages are reproductive and maternal health services and are implemented with mothers’ as their primary targets. However, the satisfaction level of mothers to the health extension service (HES) is not yet adequately studied in the country. The studies conducted in relation to the HEP primarily focused on its implementation challenges, successes and impact [22, 23,24]. To the best of our knowledge, there was one study in Jimma zone which employed a mixed method study in 2013[17]. In line with the focus of compassionate and respectful care in the current health sector transformation plan of the country [25] and the expected variation across regions of the country in the level of satisfaction in general and HES in particular, the findings of this study is timely and would contribute to the local programme planning and policy making at large. Moreover, the study has covered a large population of mothers at zonal level. Therefore, this study was aimed at assessing mothers’ satisfaction with health extension service and the factors associated with it in Gamo Goffa zone, Southern Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Setting and duration of the study

The study was conducted in the Gamo Goffa Zone, which was one of the 14 zones in Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR), Ethiopia. The zone covers a total area of 12,581.4 square kilometers consisting 15 woredas and 2 town administrations. It has 482 kebeles (448 rural and 34 urban). According to 2007 Ethiopian Fiscal year census projection, the estimated number of total populations of the study area in 2010 E.C was 2,089,527; of which 1,023,868 (49%) were males and 1,065,659 (51%) were females. Among the existing population, 13.08% of them were living in urban areas. The estimated number of women in reproductive age (15–49) were 475,546, of which 413,326 were dweller of rural kebeles. A total of 416,525 households (an average of 4.9 persons per household) within the zone and 362,027 of them were rural households. Regarding the current health facility distribution, the zone has 2 general hospitals, 5 primary hospitals, 75 health centers and 471 HPs. A total of 713 rural health extension workers were serving the rural community with ratio of 1 HEW to 2456 people [26]. As of 2019, the Gamo Goffa zone is administratively divided in to two separate zones namely Gamo and Goffa zones. The study was conducted from February 1st to February 28th of 2018.

Study design and population

A community based cross-sectional study was conducted among mothers of reproductive age (15–49 years) who reside in rural kebeles of the Gamo Goffa zone.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Mothers who lived for greater than 6 months in a kebele with functional HP and who were served by the HEP were included in the study. Those mothers who were critically ill, mentally disabled and who were not able to respond to the interview questions for any reason were excluded from the study.

Sample size and sampling procedure

A single population proportion formula was used to estimate the sample size required for the study. The sample size calculation assumed the proportion (p), the estimated level of satisfaction of mothers 83% [17], 95% confidence level, margin of error of 5% and design effect of 2 which gave a sample size of 434. In consideration of a 10% non-response rate, the final sample size was 478 mothers. Of all woredas of the study area, four (Melo Koza, Zalla, Boreda, and Arba Minch Zuria) were selected using lottery method of simple random sampling. The determination of samples from each kebele was made proportionally upon the numbers of households. Finally, systematic random sampling was employed to select the study participants from each kebele.

Data collection instruments and procedures

Data were collected using a structured questionnaire developed after a thorough review of documents, guidelines, and manuals related to HEPs, and previous studies conducted in rural areas. The research team and a team of experts working in the health extension programme checked the contents and relevance of the questions by emphasizing on the dimensions of satisfaction. This was done to ensure face and content validation of the items in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was initially prepared in English and translated into the local language and—then back translated to English to check for consistency. A face-to-face interview was conducted by data collectors who completed 10th grade and were dwellers of the respective kebeles. Supervisors were recruited from the nearby health centers in order to oversee the data collection process. Households were contacted by the assistance of guiders from the local women development army members. When women were not available at their home during the first visit, an attempt was made to reach them twice again. By far, those with no opportunity to reach them at the third trial were considered as non-respondents and; a woman next door was interviewed. During data collection, a reliability analysis was done on 162 cases (greater than or equal to 10-fold of the 16 items) and the result showed a good score of internal consistency between the items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89).

Definitions and measurements

Health extension workers

Health care practioners deployed at HP level primarily to provide promotive and preventive health care services recruited based on nationally agreed criteria that include residence in the village, capacity to speak local language, graduation from 10th grade, and willingness to remain in the village and serve the local community [27].

Model families

Households that are trained in some of the components of the HE packages and able to implement these packages and influence their relatives and neighbors to adopt the same practices [27].

Health development army

The health development army (HDA) refers to an organized movement of communities designed to improve the implementation capacity of the health sector by engaging communities to identify local challenges and corresponding strategies. Each functional team comprise up to 30 households and is further divided into smaller groups of six members, commonly referred to as one-to-five networks [27].

Health post

A primary health care unit at the grass-root level of the health care delivery system of Ethiopia staffed with HEWs and serving 3000–5000 populations [27].

Mothers’ satisfaction with different aspects of health extension service was assessed with dimensions on convenience of the service, satisfaction with courtesy (a polite speech or action) of HEWs, and satisfaction with quality of service provision using 16 satisfaction items that have five-point Likert scales. The responses, ‘very satisfied’ and ‘satisfied’ were coded and regarded as “satisfied”; whereas, responses ‘very dissatisfied’, ‘dissatisfied’ and ‘neutral’ were regarded as “unsatisfied”.

Overall satisfaction was measured as individuals score 75% of the response of the sixteen satisfaction items were categorized as “satisfied”; while those who scored less than 75% of the items were categorized as “unsatisfied”.

Data processing and analysis

Data completion and consistency were manually checked. Incomplete and inconsistent reports were discarded. The data were initially coded, checked and entered in Epi-Data software version 3.1. Then it was exported to statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) software version 23.0 for cleaning and statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies‚ mean and standard deviation was carried out to see the distribution of the participants within the variables included in the study. After cross-tabulation of each explanatory variables with the outcome variable and checking the fulfillment of chi-square assumption, binary logistic regression analysis model was fitted.

Initially, bivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to select variables for multivariable analysis. Variables with p value <0.25 in the bivariate analysis were selected as candidates for multivariable logistic regression analysis model. Model fitness was checked using Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fitness test. Multicollinearity among the explanatory variables was checked using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF>10). To control for possible confounding and identify independent factors associated with mothers’ satisfaction with HES, a final multivariable model was built using backward stepwise method. Level of statistical significance was declared at a p-value of less than or equal to 0.05. Adjusted odds ratio with its 95% CI was used to show the strength of association between each explanatory variable and the outcome variable. The results of the analysis were presented in descriptive texts and tables.

Data quality management

Data collectors and supervisors were provided with a daylong intensive training on the techniques of data collection and components of the instrument. Prior to the commencement of the data collection, pretest was conducted among 24 mothers (5% of the sample size) which were not included in the study. Based on the findings of the pre-test, ambiguous questions were amended. An ongoing formative checkup for completeness and consistency of responses was made by the supervisors on a daily basis.

Ethics consideration and consent to participate

Ethics clearance was issued from the Institutional Review Board of Arba Minch University (Number: CMHS/9441/54 on 04/04/2010 Ethiopian Calandar). Oral consent was obtained from each participant. Written consent was not sought owing to the fact that majority of rural women in our setup are not able to read. Before obtaining oral consent from each participant, a letter of support and approval for undertaking the research in the local setup was obtained from the government officials in each kebele. This was done by the approval of the IRB since there was no sensitive information regarding the data. Privacy as well as confidentiality of participants was asserted. In any case, their right to withdraw from the study at any time was assured.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants

All of the mothers (100%) were participated in the study. The mean age of participants was 31.58 (SD = ±7.25). Of all, 25.3% were in the age group of 25–29 years. More than half (55.9%) of the participants were followers of Orthodox Christianity and nearly half (51.5%) of them were from Goffa ethnic group. Regarding women’s occupation, 87.2% of them were housewives. A majority of the study participants (66.1%) were not able to read and write. About half of the participants (46.9%) earn 15–30 USD per month (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio demographic characteristics of the study participants in Gamo Goffa Zone, Southern Ethiopia, 2018 (N = 478).

Variables Frequency Percent
Age in a year
15–19 12 2.5
20–24 72 15.1
25–29 121 25.3
30–34 92 19.2
35–39 104 21.8
40–44 54 11.3
45–49 23 4.8
Religion
Orthodox 267 55.9
Protestant 211 44.1
Ethnicity
Amhara 5 1.0
Gamo 211 44.1
Goffa 246 51.5
Wolayta 16 3.3
Marital status
Married 452 94.6
Separated 12 2.5
Divorced 7 1.5
Widow 7 1.5
Educational status
Cannot read and write 316 66.1
Only read and write 80 16.7
Primary level 49 10.3
Secondary level 33 6.9
Occupation
House wife 417 87.2
Merchant 61 12.8
Family monthly income (USD)
<15 33 6.9
15–30 224 46.9
31–45 71 14.9
46–60 108 22.6
61–90 34 7.1
>90 8 1.7
Family size
<4 55 11.5
4–5 184 38.5
6–7 188 39.3
>7 51 10.7

Mothers’ interaction with health extension services

The data revealed that all the study participants had information about HES. HEWs were the source of information for the services provided for 80% of mothers in the study area. Majority of mothers (86.8%) visited HP in the last one year. More than a third of mothers (37%) were recognized as model families (Table 2).

Table 2. Mothers’ interaction with health extension services in Gamo Goffa Zone, Southern Ethiopia, 2018 (N = 478).

Variable Category Frequency Percent
Source of information about HES HEWs 384 80
Health professionals 51 11
Mass media 26 5
Neighbor 17 4
Visit to the HP (in the last one year) Yes 415 86.8
No 63 13.2
Frequency of HP visit (in the last one year) 1 times 194 47
2 times 133 32
3 times 63 15
4 and above 25 6
Travel time to HP (in minutes) ≤30 minutes 274 57.3
30–60 minutes 163 34.1
≥ 60 minutes 41 8.6
Mean± SD = 33±23
Availability of HEWs on job at HP Always 358 86
Occasional 40 10
Rarely 17 4
Received service from HEWs No 76 15.9
Yes 402 84.1
Visited by HEW (in the last one year) No 69 14.4
Yes 409 85.6
Frequency of Visit by HEW(N = 409) 1 times 180 44
2 times 121 30
3 times 80 20
≥ four times 28 7
Husband involved in HE services (in the last one year) No 345 72.2
Yes 133 27.8
Mothers participated in the planning of HE activities (in the last year) No 217 45.4
Yes 261 54.6
Mothers participated in HDA No 234 49.0
Yes 244 51.0
Mothers recognized as a model family No 301 63.0
Yes 177 37.0
Mothers know the model families in the kebele (N = 301) No 130 43
Yes 171 57
Place of residence for HEWs HP 405 84.7
Town 16 3.3
With family 57 11.9
Perceive that the HES is adequate No 357 74.7
Yes 121 25.3

Utilization of health extension services

Eighty-nine and sixty percent of the participants received services on immunization and waste management respectively. Programs such as skilled birth attendance, insecticide and rodent control, and water supply and safety were given the least attention in the community (Table 3).

Table 3. Mothers’ exposure to health extension services in Gamo Goffa Zone, Southern Ethiopia, 2018 (N = 478).

Type of service received Frequency Percent
Immunization 357 89
Excreta disposal 243 60
Malaria 238 59
Family planning 228 57
Nutrition 213 53
HIV/AIDS, other STDs 187 47
TB 174 43
Personal hygiene 165 41
Healthy house environment 137 34
Food supply and safety measures 120 30
Antenatal care 116 29
First aid 116 29
Solid and liquid waste disposal 107 27
Water supply and safety measures 104 26
Insect and rodent control 80 20

Mothers’ level of satisfaction with health extension services

Of all the participants, 37% were satisfied with the HES they received (scored 75% and above in the composite score from the 16 items). Satisfaction of the participants in the specific aspects of the services received are also presented below (Table 4).

Table 4. Mothers’ level of satisfaction with different aspects of health extension services in Gamo Goffa Zone, Southern Ethiopia, 2018 (N = 478).

S.Num Variables Satisfied Dissatisfied
Num(%) Num (%)
1 Simplicity and trouble-free service 220(46) 258(54)
2 Availability of needed instruments 212(44) 266(56)
3 Facilitation of referral for consultation 207(43) 271(57)
4 Friendliness and Courteous of HEWs 208(44) 270(56)
5 Provision of attention for clients 196(41) 282(59)
6 Provide appropriate time for examination or counseling 196(41) 282(59)
7 Keeping privacy of clients 207(43) 271(57)
8 General satisfaction with HES 240(50) 238(50)
9 Presence of variety of services 222(46) 256(54)
10 Quality of the service 217(45) 261(55)
11 Extent of met need 226(47) 252(53)
12 Availability and access to information 210(44) 268(56)
13 Perceived benefit from service received 208(44) 270(56)
14 Recommendation of the service for a friend/neighbor in need 205(43) 273(57)
15 Satisfaction with specific services during home visit 212(44) 266(56)
16 Comfort with follow-up service 203(42) 275(58)
Overall satisfaction 299(63) 179(37)

Factors associated with mothers’ satisfaction with health extension service

Monthly income of households, the availability of HEW at HP, involvement of husband in the activities of HEWs, mothers’ participation in planning of HEWs activities, participated in HDAs in the previous year and being a model family were significant factors associated with mothers’ overall satisfaction.

Participants whose monthly income was greater than 60 USD were 5.3 times more likely to be satisfied with HES [AOR = 5.3 with 95%CI (1.1, 25.2)] than those with monthly income less than 15 USD. The study participants whose husbands were participated in HES were 4.02 times more likely to be satisfied with HES [AOR = 4.02 with 95% CI (2.0, 8.1)] compared with those whose husbands did not participate. Mothers who participated in the planning of HEWs activities the year prior to the study were also 5.75 times more likely to be satisfied [AOR = 5.75, 95% CI (2.0, 16.5)] compared with those who did not participate in planning the activities of HEWs. Mothers participated in the activities of the HDAs in the previous year were 3.42 times more likely to be satisfied [AOR = 3.42, 95% CI (1.3, 9.2)] than those who did not participate in the activity of HDAs (Table 5).

Table 5. Factors associated with mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services in Gamo Goffa Zone, Southern Ethiopia.

Variable Dissatisfied Satisfied COR (95%. I)P. Value AOR (95% C.I), P-Value
Household monthly income (USD) <15 28 5 1.00 1.00
15–30 144 80 3.11 (1.2, 8.4) *.025 3.34 (.8, 13.9) .094
31–45 42 29 3.87 (1.3, 11.2) * .013 5.30 (1.1, 25.2) .036**
46–60 61 47 4.31 (1.5, 12.0) * .005 4.66 (1.1, 20.6) .042**
61–90 19 15 4.42 (1.4, 14.2) * .013 3.64 (.6, 20.5) .143
>90  5 3 3.36 (0.6, 18.7) .167 2.41 (.2, 30.1) .495
Frequency of HP visit in the previous year 1 time 123 71 1.00 1.00
2 times 68 65 1.66 (1.1, 2.6) * .027 .98(.5, 2.0) .945
3 times 36 27 1.30 (0.7, 2.3) * .375 1.33 (.5, 3.7) .590
4 and above 11 14 2.20 (0.9, 5.1) * .066 1.42 (.4, 5.2) .594
Time taken to reach at HP on foot (in minute) 1–30 minutes 147 127 1.00 1.00
31–60 minutes 115 48 0.48 (0.3, 0.7) * .001 .68 (.3, 1.3) .268
>61minutes 37 4 0.13 (0.0, 0.4) * .000 1.23 (.2, 6.7) .810
The availability of HEW on job at HP Always 193 165 1.00 1.00
Occasional 31 9 0.34 (0.2, 0.7) * .006 .15 (.1, .4) .000**
Rarely 14 3 0.25 (0.1, 0.9) * .032 .56 (.1, 3.1) .499
Received the service from health extension at HP No 72 4 1.00  1.00
Yes 227 175 13.88 (5.0, 38.7) * .000 2.93 (.3, 27.7) .349
Frequency of visit of HHs by HEWs 1 times 124 56 1.00 1.00
2 times 64 57 1.97 (1.2, 3.2) * .005 .79 (.4, 1.7) .551
3 times 30 50 3.69 (2.1, 6.4) * .000 1.26 (.5, 3.0) .600
4 and above 13 15 2.55 (1.1, 5.7) *.023 1.57 (.5, 5.3) .464
Involvement of husband in HES No 269 76 1.00 1.00
Yes 30 103 12.15 (7.5, 19.6) * .000 4.02 (2.0, 8.1) .000**
Mothers participated in planning of HES No 205 12  1.00 1.00
Yes 94 167 30.35 (16.1, 57.2) *.000 5.75 (2.0, 16.5) .001**
 Mothers participated in activity of HDA No 218 16 1.00 1.00
Yes 81 163 27.42 (15.5, 48.6) * .000 3.42 (1.3, 9.2) .015**
Mothers recognized as a model family No 255 46 1.00 1.00
Yes 44 133 16.76 (10.5, 26.6) * .000 2.23 (1.1, 4.6) .028**

*-significant at a p-value less than 0.25

**-significant at a p-value less than 0.05

Discussion

This study was aimed to assess the level of mothers’ satisfaction with the HES and to identify independent factors associated with their satisfaction in Gamo Goffa zone, southern Ethiopia.

The finding from the study revealed that the overall proportion of mothers who were satisfied with HES was 37.4% with 95% CI (33, 44%). This value is very low compared with findings of a similar study conducted in Jimma zone, 83% [17]. This discrepancy may be due to difference in knowledge of mothers, cultural diversity, and the techniques used to compute overall satisfaction. This study measured satisfaction in a more comprehensive way considering additional aspects of the HES. Though the low satisfaction might be related to the measurement, it implies that satisfaction with the HES is far lower in the study area seen in light of the aspects considered.

Family monthly income of mothers was significantly associated with their satisfaction with HES. This finding is consistent with the study conducted in West Gojjam Zone [28]. In studies from clinical care setup and with a paid service, monthly income was inversely associated with satisfaction [29] or else did not show any association with satisfaction to the service [3032]. Women from a higher family income might be more educated, autonomous in household decisions and health care choices and would also have better alternatives in accessing the curative services provided in other higher-level institutions. Even though HES is free of charge in the health care delivery of the country, households with lower income might not be satisfied with the service owing to its least focus on curative services which majorly incurs cost to them at higher health facilities. Unmet needs for curative services was also concerns of households from previous studies in Ethiopia [17,3335].

Consistent with the findings from the Jimma study [17], husbands’ involvement in HES is also another factor associated with satisfaction of mothers in the service. Male involvement has resulted in improved uptake of reproductive and maternal services in previous studies in the country [3640]. Husbands who were involved in HES are more likely to be committed in approving women’s initiation to receive the service and act as a model to the community. Moreover, they might be more professionals and competent, of recognized status by the community and in a position to confront challenging work conditions and share the information they gained from these experiences to their wives [17,41]. Thus, these would have resulted in a better satisfaction of women in the study. This implies that a sustained effort is on demand from the stakeholders to strengthen participation of husband’s in the HES.

Mothers’ participation in the HDA was also associated factor of mother’s satisfaction with HES. This is plausible since HDAs are networks of the community who work with sub-team 1 to 5 networks of households in the community [27], participation in their activities does mean participation to the HES in general. A study from Australia suggested that community participation will result in higher community satisfaction with health services as well as better health outcomes [42]. In our case, as mothers are more exposed to the activities by the HDAs, they will more likely be satisfied with the HES as HDAs are volunteers who are implementers of the HES [27].

In the present study, mothers who were recognized as a model family were more likely to be satisfied compared with mothers who were not recognized as a model family. A consistent finding was reported from previous related studies from West Gojam [16] and Jimma zones[17], North West and South West Ethiopia respectively. Model families are the early adopters of desirable health practices as a role model to implement the HE packages and their selection is used as a strategy to improve household behaviors. They are deemed to have acceptance and credibility by the community and are presumed to diffuse health messages so that the desired practices and behaviours can be easily adopted by the rest of the community[9]. Since the model families are at the front seat and interested in the HES, they are more likely to be satisfied than those who are not. This suggests the expansion of model family coverage in the local setup and by extension in the country.

So, the stakeholders should work to address the identified factors particularly graduating households as a model family that would increase their participation and satisfaction in the HES leading to improvement in basic health services utilization. Husband involvement also needs a reconsideration.

This study was conducted among rural mothers from a large population of Gamo Goffa Zone and has considered a wider dimension of satisfaction to the HES. However, it has few limitations to consider. Family monthly income was measured as an average income for the household which may not always give a reliable response as majority of rural women in the study setup were not educated and therefore may not be able to estimate their monthly income in term of cash. Besides this, mother’s evaluation of their own income should have also been sought and it would have been better if a household wealth index was created. Also, the scale used to measure satisfaction in this study was not rigorously validated. Moreover, the study looked to women’s satisfaction from their own perspective. The perspectives and perceptios of HEWs, and others working for the improvement of the HEP is the area which needs a further evidence from a qualitative study.

Conclusion

The study revealed that satisfaction to HES is very low in Gamo Goffa Zone. Family average monthly income, involvement of husband in HES, mothers’ participation in planning of HES and in the activities of HDAs in the previous year and mothers’ recognition as a model family were significant factors associated with their overall satisfaction.

Supporting information

S1 File. Revised manuscript with track changes.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Response to reviews.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the data collectors and the study participants for their voluntariness in the data collection process and Arba Minch University for providing ethical clearance.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Segal J. The role of the Internet in doctor performance rating. Pain Physician. 2009. 12:659–664. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Josephine C, Chiwoza B, Bonus M, Kondwani N, Frank T, Eddie M. patients’ satisfaction with reproductive health services at Gogo Chatinkha Maternity Unit, Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, Blantyre, Malawi Mothers’ Malawi Medical Journal; March 2010; 22(1):5–9 10.4314/mmj.v22i1.55899 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Assefa F, Mosse A. Assessment of Clients satisfaction with health service deliveries at Jimma University specialized hospital. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences. 2011; 21(2):101–10. 10.4314/ejhs.v21i2.69050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jackson JL, Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Social Science & Medicine. 2001; 52(4):609–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.FMOH. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. Health Sector Transformation Plan HSTP 2016 up to 2020. 2016.
  • 6.CSA. Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey. 2016.
  • 7.Pérez Leda M., and Jacqueline Martinez, 2008. Community Health Workers: Social Justice and Policy Advocates for Community Health and Well-Being, MPH Am J Public Health. 2008. JanuaryPMCID: PMC2156047). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ayele T. ASSESSMENT OF FACTORS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION OF HEALTH EXTENSION PROGRAM IN SELECTED SUBCITIES OF ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.FMOH. Health Extension Program in Ethiopia: Profile. Health Extension and Education Center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, p. 2 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.SNNPHB. South Nation Nationalities and People Region Health Bureau Health Sector Transformation Plan HSTP 2016 up to 2020. 2016.
  • 11.EFMOH. Ethiopia’s Health Extension Program Evaluation Study 2007–2010. In: Health post and HEWs performance Survey. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2011.
  • 12.FMOH. Ethiopia’s Health Extension Program: Pathfinder International’s Support 2003–2007. 2008.
  • 13.USAID, UNICEF, UNFPA, UKaid, CDC, MOH. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Calverton, MD: Central Statistical Agency (Ethiopia) and ICF International, (http://www.unicef.org/ethiopia/ET_2011_EDHS.pdf.
  • 14.Gebrehiwot TG, San Sebastian M, Edin K, Goicolea I. The Health Extension Program and Its Association with Change in Utilization of Selected Maternal Health Services in Tigray Region, Ethiopia: A Segmented Linear Regression Analysis. PloS one. 2015;10(7):e0131195 10.1371/journal.pone.0131195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rizwanul M. MSea. Identifying role of perceived quality and satisfaction on the utilization status of the community clinic services; Bangladesh context 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 16.Derebe MM, Shiferaw MB, Ayalew MA. Low satisfaction of clients for the health service provision in West Amhara region, Ethiopia. PloS one. 2017;12(6):e0179909 10.1371/journal.pone.0179909 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Birhanu Z, Godesso A, Kebede Y, Gerbaba M. Mothers' experiences and satisfactions with health extension program in Jimma zone, Ethiopia: a cross sectional study. BMC health services research. 2013;13:74 10.1186/1472-6963-13-74 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nwaeze O., Enabort luwasola c. Aimakhu. Perception and satisfaction with quality of antenatal care services among pregnant women at the university college hospital, ibadan, NIGRIA. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Delta State University Teaching hospital, Ogharra, Delta state and, Department of Obstetrics and Gynacology, University College Hospital, Ibadan. Ann Ibd. Pg; 2013.11, 22–28. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 19.Masatu MC, Klepp KI and Kvale G. Use of health services and reported satisfaction among primary school adolescents in Arusha, Tanzania. J Adol Hlth. 2001; 28(4):278–287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Akin JS and Hutchinson P. Health-care facility choice and the phenomenon of by-passing. Hlth Policy Plann.1999; 14(2):135–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Barnett B. Women's views influence choice. Network. 1995; 16(1):14–1 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ye-Ebiyo Y, Kitaw Y, G/Yohannes A, Girma S, Desta H, Seyoum A, et al. Study on health extension workers: access to information, continuing education and reference materials. Ethiop J Health 2007, 21(3):240–245. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Banteyerga H. Ethiopia's health extension program: improving health through community involvement. MEDICC review. 2011;13(3):46–9. 10.1590/s1555-79602011000300011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Assefa Yibeltal, Gelaw Yalemzewod Assefa, Hill Peter S., Taye Belaynew Wassieand Damme Wim Van. Community health extension program of Ethiopia, 2003–2018: successes and challenges toward universal coverage for primary healthcare services. Globalization and Health, 2019; 15:24 10.1186/s12992-019-0470-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Health. Health sector transformation plan. 2015.
  • 26.Gamo-Goffa Zone health departement. Gamo-Goffa Zone Health departement: Annual report. 2017.
  • 27.Huihui Wang, Tesfaye Roman, Ramana Gandham N. V., Chekagn Chala Tesfaye. Ethiopia Health Externsion Program: An Institutionalized Community Approach for Universal Health Coverage. World Bank Studies; Washington, DC: 2016,. World Bank. 10.1596/978-1-4648-0815-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Miler N AM, et al. Integrated community management of childhood illness in Ethiopia: implementation strength and quality of care. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene 2014; 91(2): 424–34. 2014. 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Birol BÜYÜKDOĞAN,Hasan GEDĐK, Yüksel ERELĐ, Ömer TANYELĐ. The impact of service quality and public relations on patient satisfaction in hospitals. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences. 2017; 16, 60 (186–197). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Elsadig Yousif Mohamed et al. Patients’ Satisfaction with Primary Health Care Centers’ Services, Majmaah, Kingdom of Saudi of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Health Sciences, Qassim University. 2015;9:2. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 31.Bulut Aliye and Oguzoncul A Ferdane. Evaluating the level of satisfaction of patients utilizing first-level health facilities as a function of health system performance rating in the province of Elazig, Turkey. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2014:8 1483–1492. 10.2147/PPA.S72408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Maher AL-sakak et al. Patient satisfaction with primary health care service in Ryhadh.Saudi Med J.2008;29:3.www.smj.org.sa [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bekele A, Kefale M, Tadesse M: Preliminary assessment of the implementation of the health services extension program: the case of southern Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health 2008, 22(3):302–305. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sebastian M, Lemma H: Efficiency of the health extension programme in tigray, Ethiopia: a data envelopment analysis. BMC Inter Health Human Rights 2010, 10(1):16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Teklehaimanot A, Kitaw YG, Yohannes A, Girma S, Seyoum A, Desta H, et al. Study of the working conditions of health extension workers in Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health 2007, 21(3):246–259. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Daniele MA, Ganaba R, Sarrassat S, Cousens S, Rossier C, Drabo S, et al. Involving male partners in maternity care in Burkina Faso: a randomized controlled trial. Bull World Health Organ. 2018;96(7):450–61. 10.2471/BLT.17.206466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lyatuu GW, Naburi H, Urrio R, Mwashemele SZ, Mdingi S, Panga R, et al. Engaging community leaders to improve male partner participation in the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0207986 10.1371/journal.pone.0207986 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tokhi M, Comrie-Thomson L, Davis J, Portela A, Chersich M, Luchters S. Involving men to improve maternal and newborn health: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. PloS one. 2018;13(1):e0191620–e. 10.1371/journal.pone.0191620 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Aarnio P, Olsson P, Chimbiri A, Kulmala T. Male involvement in antenatal HIV counseling and testing: exploring men's perceptions in rural Malawi. AIDS care. 2009;21(12):1537–46. 10.1080/09540120902903719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Abuhay Y. Male Involvement in Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission of HIV and Associated Factors Among Males in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. American Journal of Health Research. 2014;2(6). [Google Scholar]
  • 41.JSI: Rapid appraisal of health extension program: Ethiopia country report.JSI-Res Training Institute Inc 2008,: 8–41.
  • 42.Kilpatrick S. Multi-level rural community engagement in health. Australian Journal of Rural Health. 2009;17:39–44. 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2008.01035.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nülüfer Erbil

27 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-34888

Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs. Yeshitila,

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 Apr 12 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,

Nülüfer Erbil, Ph.D, Prof.

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. 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.  If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible.

3. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section.

4. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: Please explain why was written consent was not obtained, how you recorded/documented participant consent, and if the ethics committees/IRBs approved this consent procedure.

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Thank you for inviting me to review the above-mentioned manuscript. Please see my comments as follow:

1.Abstract: Authors should report the odds of mother that had lower satisfaction not mothers with higher satisfaction.

Methods

1.Please mention the name of country along with the region of study.

2.Please state the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the study.

3.The validity and reliability of the questionnaire that authors used in this study did not confirm properly.

Results

1.Table 1: for better understanding of economic situation, please exchange the currency of your country to the US Dollar. It was much better, if you have asked about how participants evaluate their economic situation? For instance good, poor, moderate. May you please consider this matter in the limitations of study.

2.Table 1: please provide the mean and SD for continuous data such as age.

3.Please provide some midwifery information such as, gravida, para, number of abortion, and the previous mode of delivery…

4.What authors mean about model family?

5.Table 4: please put the number and percentages together.

6.The availability of HEW on job at HP was significant and seems that occasional availability was a source of dissatisfaction, please explain.

Discussion

1.Please write the objective of the study at the beginning of the discussion.

2.Please mention the limitations of the study at the end of discussion.

3.Authors found that only small percentages of mothers are satisfied with the services received from health providers. It might be due to the different instrument that they used in this study and also did not validate it.

Reviewer #2: This cross sectional study which looked at Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia is commendable and will add to the already existing body of knowledge on this topic. The title of the study is appropriate, the sample size determination and methodology were systematic. The study investigates important issues related to maternal satisfaction in a low income country. The subject is relevant for reflections on prevention of maternal deaths in the country. Over all the manuscript clearly states factors which contribute maternal satisfaction in relation to health extension service provision which intern may contribute to decrease maternal mortality in the country, I suggest the paper is suitable for publication once after the author come with necessary correction and hope that editors will consider publishing the article.

Besides that I have some points to mention:

-some of grammatical errors should be corrected (subject to verb agreement); for example data is the plural form so it is better to use “were” instead of “was” and see it for “kebeles” as well

-At abstract: you state compassionate and respectful maternity services; it doesn’t go with your objectives, so the authors should see it again. In addition the word “Methods” are repeated.

-Background is too long and is better to exchange first and second paragraph

-In method section p12 L 124; you have used design effect; why it is important to use it since you didn’t clearly state weather you have used cluster sampling or not

-Under the Results, the labelling of the tables had the title of the whole study repeated under each table. My suggestion would be that Table 1 should be titled: Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents, Table 2 should be: Mothers’ interaction with health extension services, and so on. Again in table 1under age category it is mentioned as “30-3” see it again. When you try to mention study subjects as ‘participants’ in some part and ‘respondents’ I suggest you to use consistent way of writing.

-Table 5 is not clear. There should be a key to explain the single and double asterix.

-In discussion section it was stated as this discrepancy may be due to difference in knowledge respondents, cultural diversity, satisfaction items and the techniques used to compute overall satisfaction. This study measured satisfaction in a more comprehensive way considering additional aspects of the HES. My biggest concern is the difference in satisfaction items how it can be different as it was Likert scales. Please explain briefly

- better to add declaration section in your manuscript

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript under title the Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia.

Title:

It's better to capitalize the first letter in each word in the title.

At the beginning of each paragraph leaves a space and begins writing.

Abstract:

1-In line 34 delete repeated word (method).

2-in line 41 review the results and style of writing. For example, focuses on the [AOR=4.02 (95% CI 45 2.0, 8.1),

3-Not use Abbreviations in the abstract. In line 55. Write done Health Extension Workers.

Method:

In general, the method needs revision and rearmament of the subtitle. For example:

1-If you agree change the (Study Area and period) to Setting and Duration of the Study. In line 104.

2- Clarify the estimated number of total population in line (108) under title population estimated or Population with estimation of sample size.

3-Explain inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results:

1-Revision all tables.

2-Table number 2 not clear. Unifying the form of writing numbers and the symbol %.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Parvin Abedi

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Warda Hassan Abdullah

[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 May 7;15(5):e0232908. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232908.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Mar 2020

RESPONSE TO REVIEWS BY EDITOR AND REVIEWERS

PONE-D-19-34888

Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Goffa Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Editor’s 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

Response: We have made the revised manuscript to conform to plosone’s style requirements.

2. 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. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible.

Response: We have included a copy of the questionnaire used in this study as a “supporting information”.

3. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section.

Response: We really appreciate for your concern on the gap in information with regard to the validity and reliability of the survey instrument. We admit that we have not followed the steps for scale validation in its strict sense. However, we have done things related to face and content validations as the research team discussed on dimensions of satisfaction and the clarity and relevance of the survey questions and reached agreement before testing the questions on the study women. The research team (experts of public health, nursing and midwifery) and a team of local experts working with in the health extension programme were participated in suggesting the components of satisfaction and appropriate wording of questions. Right before data collection, a pre-test was made on 5% (24 mothers) to see the appropriateness of the questions to the mothers in charge and the necessary amendments were made to make the questions suitable to the survey. Moreover, concurrent to the data collection, a reliability analysis was made to check for internal consistency on 162 samples of women (Cronbach’s alpha=0.89). We apologize for not going through the other validation steps which are not commonly done in our country. An additional statement has been provided in the “manuscript with track changes” document.

4. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: Please explain why was written consent was not obtained, how you recorded/documented participant consent, and if the ethics committees/IRBs approved this consent procedure.

Response: Thank you for your concern and remarks on this important area. Oral consent was obtained owing to the fact that majority of the rural women in our setup are not able to read and write except few who might have attended a formal/ an informal education or else working in the public/private sector. Before going to obtain oral consent from each participant, a letter of support and approval for undertaking the research in the local setup was obtained from government officials in each kebele. The IRB approved this procedure initially at proposal defense stage for there was no sensitive issue regarding the research task. These statements have been incorporated to the “revised manuscript with track changes” file in the “methods” section.

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS

Reviewer #1:

Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Thank you for inviting me to review the above-mentioned manuscript. Please see my comments as follow:

1.Abstract: Authors should report the odds of mother that had lower satisfaction not mothers with higher satisfaction.

Response: Our categorization of the outcome variable was initially as “satisfied=1” and “dissatisfied=0”. Thus, the success category would be satisfaction and the odds ratio we found from this analysis were >1 (shows a positive association). Therefore, we have reported in favor of higher satisfaction owing to these reasons -the odds ratio is positive and the success variable initially coded as 1 in the logistic regression model was “satisfied” and as 0 was “dissatisfied”.

Methods

1.Please mention the name of country along with the region of study.

Response: We have included it in the “methods” section (line 106).

2.Please state the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the study.

Response: We have included it in the “methods” section (L 121-126).

3.The validity and reliability of the questionnaire that authors used in this study did not confirm properly.

Response: We really appreciate your concern on the gap in information with regard to the validity and reliability of the survey instrument. We admit that we have not followed the steps for scale validation in its rigorous sense. However, we have done things related to face validation and content validations as the research team discussed on dimensions of satisfaction and the clarity and relevance of the survey questions and reached agreement before testing the questions on the study women. The research team (experts of public health, nursing and midwifery) and a team of local experts working with in the health extension programme were participated in suggesting the components of satisfaction and appropriate wording of questions. Right before data collection, a pre-test was made on 5% (24 mothers) to see the suitability of the questions to the mothers in charge and the necessary amendments were made to make the questions suitable to the survey. Moreover, concurrent to the data collection, a reliability analysis was made to check for internal consistency on 162 samples of women (Cronbach’s alpha=0.89). Forgive us for not going through the other validation steps which are not commonly done in our country. An additional statement has been provided in the “manuscript with track changes” document.

Results

1.Table 1: for better understanding of economic situation, please exchange the currency of your country to the US Dollar.

Response: We have corrected it to USD in table 1 of the revised manuscript.

2. It was much better, if you have asked about how participants evaluate their economic situation?

For instance-good, poor, moderate. May you please consider this matter in the limitations of the study.

Response: We have included it as a limitation in the “discussion” section of the revised manuscript.

3.Table 1: Please provide the mean and SD for continuous data such as age.

Response: Dear reviewer, the mean and standard deviation of age was already presented in the text under “socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants”.

3. Please provide some midwifery information such as, gravida, para, number of abortions, and the previous mode of delivery…

Response: Dear reviewer, we do not have these data from the outset. Since we did not get any theoretical or literature ground that supports as these factors were associated with satisfaction to a given program, we did not include them as a variable/explanatory variable in this study. Had these variables were included in the model, the probability that they are too much correlated to maternal age or educational status is high. However, if we had the data now, we would have described it here as a “background” characteristic.

5.What authors mean about model family?

Response: This has been defined in the “definitions and measurement” section as – “Model families: Households that are trained in some of the components of the HE packages and able to implement these packages and influence their relatives and neighbors to adopt the same practices [27]”. Kindly look to it.

6.Table 4: please put the number and percentages together.

Response: We have revised it accordingly in the revised manuscript.

7.The availability of HEW on job at HP was significant and seems that occasional availability was a source of dissatisfaction, please explain.

Response: This is just related to mother’s satisfaction with the service directly goes with the usual presence or occasional presence or absence of HEWs in the health post. Health extension workers are providers of the service. When women come to get the service they wanted , they will be happy or satisfied when they get the service providers in the respective health posts, most importantly at all times.

Discussion

1.Please write the objective of the study at the beginning of the discussion.

Response: Thank you for your directions. We have included our study objectives at the beginning of the “discussion” section.

2.Please mention the limitations of the study at the end of discussion.

Response: Thank you again for your direction here too. We have incorporated the limitations of the study at the end of the discussion.

3.Authors found that only small percentages of mothers are satisfied with the services received from health providers. It might be due to the different instrument that they used in this study and also did not validate it.

Response: We sincerely apologize for the tool validation which should have been done in a rigorous way before we go for data collection. However, we have tried to show what steps we ensue with the tool development (face and content validation), pre-tested the questionnaire on 5% of the sample of women and conducted a reliability analysis on the first 162 mother’s data (Cronbach’s alpha=0.89). We admit the assertion on the small percentage of satisfaction and had already discussed on it in the “discussion” section…...” Though the low satisfaction might be related to the measurement, it implies that satisfaction with the HES is far lower in the study area seen in light of the aspects considered” …. (lines 264-265). We have included a limitation statement in the “discussion” section.

Reviewer #2:

This cross-sectional study which looked at Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia is commendable and will add to the already existing body of knowledge on this topic. The title of the study is appropriate, the sample size determination and methodology were systematic. The study investigates important issues related to maternal satisfaction in a low -income country. The subject is relevant for reflections on prevention of maternal deaths in the country.

Over all the manuscript clearly states factors which contribute maternal satisfaction in relation to health extension service provision which in turn may contribute to decrease maternal mortality in the country, I suggest the paper is suitable for publication once after the author come with necessary correction and hope that editors will consider publishing the article.

Response: Thank you very much for your inspiring remarks.

Besides that, I have some points to mention:

1. Some of grammatical errors should be corrected (subject to verb agreement); for example, data is the plural form so it is better to use “were” instead of “was” and see it for “kebeles” as well

Response: Thank you for your corrections. We have made the necessary corrections where appropriate.

2. At abstract: you state compassionate and respectful maternity services; it doesn’t go with your objectives, so the authors should see it again.

Response: Compassionate and respectful care has been mentioned in the “abstract” and the “background” section for its close connection with satisfaction to service and its strategic connection with the current Ethiopian government health sector transformation plan and the SDGs.

3. In addition, the word “Methods” are repeated.

Response: Thank you for your meticulous observation. We have removed one of the “methods” and the “abstract” section.

4. Background is too long and is better to exchange first and second paragraph

Response: We have exchanged the first and the second paragraphs and therefore references number 1-14 have been exchanged accordingly.

5. In method section p12 L 124; you have used design effect; why it is important to use it since you didn’t clearly state weather you have used cluster sampling or not.

Response: Since the study is at zonal level, we have employed multi- stages sampling where the woredas and kebeles were considered as clusters. We have selected some woredas and kebeles to represent the remaining woredas and kebeles because we considered that these woredas and kebeles were externally homogenous with regard to satisfaction to HE services.

6. Under the Results, the labeling of the tables had the title of the whole study repeated under each table. My suggestion would be that Table 1 should be titled: Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents, Table 2 should be: Mothers’ interaction with health extension services, and so on.

Response: We have written the label in such a way just to conform to the principle in writing titles of tables and figures as it should be self-explanatory- things like where, what, and when should be answered.

7. Again, in table 1under age category it is mentioned as “30-3” see it again.

Response: Thank you very much for your meticulous observation. We have corrected it under “table 1”.

8. When you try to mention study subjects as ‘participants’ in some part and ‘respondents’ I suggest you to use consistent way of writing.

Response: Thank you for your direction here. We have made it to be consistent as “participants”.

9. Table 5 is not clear. There should be a key to explain the single and double Asterix.

Response: Thank you for the correction. We have clarified further about the symbols.

10. In the “discussion section” it was stated as this discrepancy may be due to difference in knowledge of respondents, cultural diversity, satisfaction items and the techniques used to compute overall satisfaction. This study measured satisfaction in a more comprehensive way considering additional aspects of the HES. My biggest concern is the difference in satisfaction items how it can be different as it was Likert scales. Please explain briefly

Response: Thank you for expressing your concern. We found it a confusing expression and removed it from the stated section.

11. It is better to add declaration section in your manuscript.

Response: We did not add a declaration section as part of the manuscript owing to its absence in the “plos one manuscript formatting”. However, almost all the contents known to be part of “declaration” in the other reputable journals are there in the Plos one online submission system and we have provided the appropriate response.

Reviewer #3:

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript under title the Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia.

Title:

1. It's better to capitalize the first letter in each word in the title.

Response: We have followed the plose one formatting style that the title should be in sentence case.

2. At the beginning of each paragraph leaves a space and begins writing.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation. We have corrected accordingly.

Abstract:

1-In line 34 delete repeated word (method).

Response: Thank you very much for your meticulous observation to improve our work. We have removed the repeated word.

2-In line 41 review the results and style of writing. For example, focuses on the [AOR=4.02 (95% CI 45 2.0, 8.1),

Response: We ask for forgiveness that we could not get the remark here.

3-Not use Abbreviations in the abstract. In line 55. Write done Health Extension Workers.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the necessary correction.

Method:

In general, the method needs revision and rearmament of the subtitle. For example:

1-If you agree change the (Study Area and period) to Setting and Duration of the Study. In line 104.

Response: We have corrected accordingly.

2- Clarify the estimated number of total populations in line (108) under title population estimated or Population with estimation of sample size.

Response: The estimated number of women of reproductive age is estimated from the total population by using a conversion factor for Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR) of Ethiopia. The conversion factor is derived from average percentages of women 15-49 during the most recent census in the region. Sample size is calculated by considering these women of reproductive age as a source population and using the usual assumptions for single population proportion formula.

3-Explain inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation. We have included the inclusion and exclusion criteria to this study.

Results:

1-Revision all tables.

Response: Thank you for your recommendations. We have revised the tables so that it can conform to the Plos one table formatting.

2-Table number 2 not clear. Unifying the form of writing numbers and the symbol %.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation. We have improved table 2 according to your suggestion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Nülüfer Erbil

8 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-34888R1

Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs. Yeshitila,

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 May 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,

Nülüfer Erbil, Ph.D, Prof.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Author/ Authors,

The opinions and suggestions of the 3rd reviewer regarding your article are below. Submit corrections in your article according to the recommendations of the reviewer.

The opinions and suggestions of the 3rd reviewer:

Thank you for the opportunity to second time review this manuscript under title the Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia.

Thank you for follow my recommendations. Please see care full until now some comment not corrected like the following:

1- It's better to capitalize the first letter in each word in the title.

2- At the beginning of each paragraph leaves a space and begins writing.

3- Some of grammatical errors should be corrected

4- in line 41 you are corrected the style of writing. For example, the [AOR=4.02 (95% CI 45 2.0, 8.1), You are corrected it [AOR=4.02 (95% CI 45 2.0, 8.1)],

Correct all of them in line 42, 43,44…. When you used the [ at the begin should be closed at the end. [……] . If I was right

5- Number and data of Ethics consideration letter write down under subtitle Ethics consideration.

6- Table number 2, Unifying the form of writing numbers and the symbol %

For example, you are put in some area or part the symbol of percentage and omitted in the other part.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The responses of authors to my comments were comprehensive and authors have addressed my comments comprehensively

Reviewer #2: The paper will provide good insight regarding to maternal and child health related complications secondary to dissatisfaction if publication is considered

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to second time review this manuscript under title the Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia.

Thank you for follow my recommendations. Please see care full until now some comment not corrected like the following:

1- It's better to capitalize the first letter in each word in the title.

2- At the beginning of each paragraph leaves a space and begins writing.

3- Some of grammatical errors should be corrected

4- in line 41 you are corrected the style of writing. For example, the [AOR=4.02 (95% CI 45 2.0, 8.1), You are corrected it [AOR=4.02 (95% CI 45 2.0, 8.1)],

Correct all of them in line 42, 43,44…. When you used the [ at the begin should be closed at the end. [……] . If I was right

5- Number and data of Ethics consideration letter write down under subtitle Ethics consideration.

6- Table number 2, Unifying the form of writing numbers and the symbol %

For example, you are put in some area or part the symbol of percentage and omitted in the other part.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Parvin Abedi

Reviewer #2: Yes: Daniel Adane Endalew

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files 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 May 7;15(5):e0232908. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232908.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Apr 2020

Authors’ response to Editor and Reviewer comments

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Comment:

Dear Author/ Authors,

The opinions and suggestions of the 3rd reviewer regarding your article are below. Submit corrections in your article according to the recommendations of the reviewer.

Response: Thank you dear Prof. Nülüfer Erbil, we have given a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comment and have made the changes in the revised manuscript shown with track changes.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Reviewer 3 comments

General comments: Thank you for follow my recommendations.

Response: Thank you for your inspiring comment.

Specific comments:

Please see care full until now some comment not corrected like the following.

1- It's better to capitalize the first letter in each word in the title.

Response: As we have replied in the first revision, we left it as it is just to conform to Plos One title guide which recommends the title to be in a sentence case. Kindly consider our efforts to conform to the journal formatting style. (Please refer to https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines, specifically under the section of Title page

2- At the beginning of each paragraph leaves a space and begins writing.

Response: We ask apologies for missing this comment. We have now corrected this in the revised submission.

3- Some of grammatical errors should be corrected

Response: We are so sorry; we could not get the exact places in the document where these corrections are actually needed. However, we have gone all over the texts and corrected the errors we are able to detect.

4- in line 41 you are corrected the style of writing. For example, the [AOR=4.02 (95% CI 45 2.0, 8.1), You are corrected it [AOR=4.02 (95% CI 45 2.0, 8.1)],

Correct all of them in line 42, 43,44…. When you used the [ at the begin should be closed at the end. [……] . If I was right.

Response: Thank you very much for your meticulous observation to the errors we were unable to detect. We have corrected it and have made the changes in the “revised man¬uscript with track changes” file.

5- Number and data of Ethics consideration letter write down under subtitle Ethics consideration

Response: We have included the number and date from the ethics assurance letter under the “Ethics consideration” section of methods.

6- Table number 2, unifying the form of writing numbers and the symbol %

For example, you are put in some area or part the symbol of percentage and omitted in the other part.

Response: We have corrected in accordance with your recommendations in Table 2.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Nülüfer Erbil

24 Apr 2020

Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Goffa Zone, Southern Ethiopia

PONE-D-19-34888R2

Dear Dr. Yeshitila,

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,

Nülüfer Erbil, Ph.D, Prof.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Nülüfer Erbil

29 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-34888R2

Mothers’ satisfaction with health extension services and the associated factors in Gamo Goffa zone, Southern Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Yeshitila:

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

Mrs. Nülüfer Erbil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Revised manuscript with track changes.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Response to reviews.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES