Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 May 20;15(5):e0232550. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232550

Determinants of knowledge of pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia

Ratna Dwi Wulandari 1,*, Agung Dwi Laksono 2
Editor: Frank T Spradley3
PMCID: PMC7239433  PMID: 32433645

Abstract

Introduction

The maternal mortality rate in Indonesia is still quite high. It requires good knowledge for early prevention. The study aimed to analyze the determinants of knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia.

Methods

The samples used were 85,832 women of childbearing age (15–49 years old). The variables included understanding of danger signs of pregnancy, types of residence, age, education, employment, marital status, wealth, parity, the autonomy of health, current pregnancy status, and media exposure. The determinant was pointed out by using binary logistic regression.

Results

Urban women were 1.124 times more likely to understand the pregnancy danger signs of than rural women. Older women could identify pregnancy danger signs better than those aged 15–19 years. The more educated a woman is, the higher knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs she has. Married women or those who live with their partner were at 1.914 times likely to identify the pregnancy danger signs than unmarried ones or those who have never been in a relationship. If the wealth status gets higher, knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs will be better too. Grande multiparous women were at 0.815 times more likely to understand the pregnancy danger signs than primiparous. Women with the autonomy of health had 1.053 times chances to identify the pregnancy danger signs than those without autonomy. Women who were currently pregnant had 1.229 times better understanding of the pregnancy danger signs than women who were not currently pregnant. Media exposure had a good effect on women’s understanding of the pregnancy danger signs.

Conclusion

All variables tested were the determinants of knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia. These include residence, age, education, employment, marital status, wealth, parity, the autonomy of health, current pregnancy status, and media exposure.

Introduction

Globally, at least one woman dies every minute during pregnancy and childbirth [1]. Deaths due to pregnancy complications and vaginal birth can be easily prevented [2][3]. Prevention can be done by increasing knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs, which has a strong correlation with early detection of pregnancy risks. Women who know the pregnancy danger signs are at 6.657 times more likely than those who do not understand about early detection of pregnancy risks [4]. Knowledge of pregnancy danger signs has a strong correlation with antenatal care [3]. Women who can identify the pregnancy danger signs are 3.470 times more likely to participate in antenatal care [5]. It is an evidence that knowledge of pregnancy danger signs as well as Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR).

The Indonesian Government targeted several indicators for the development of health and nutrition status in 2019. First, the Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) was 306 per 100,000 live births. Second, the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) was targeted to reach 24 per 1,000 live births. Third, the prevalence of malnutrition among children under five years was 17 per 100,000 live births. Fourth, the prevalence of stunting among children under two years was 28 per 100,000 population [6].

Based on the latest data released by the Data and Information Center in 2016, the Indonesian Ministry of Health reported that at this time MMR decreased. The 2010 Population Census showed there were 346 maternal mortalities per 100,000 live births, and then the number of maternal deaths dropped to 305 per 100,000 live births based on 2015 Inter-Census Population Survey (SUPAS) data. However, this figure has still not reached the MDG target in 2015 of 102 per 100,000 live births [7].

While based on the SDG’s target, Indonesia is demanded to achieve even higher. There are 3 main targets, which are likely to reduce the MMR below 70 deaths per 100,000 live births, the number of neonatal mortalities of 12 per 1000 live births, and the number of death rate among under-five-year children by 25 per 1,000 live births [8].

Compared to other countries, the MMR in Indonesia had a higher rate. The MMR recorded in Indonesia was 9 times higher than in Malaysia, 5 times higher compared to in Vietnam, and almost 2 times higher than in Cambodia. The World Health Organization estimated that a significant disparity of the MMR occurred between developed and developing countries. The MMR in developed countries was approximately in the range of 12 per 100,000 live births, while in developing countries it was around at 239 per 100,000 live births [9][10].

Indonesia has to put more efforts to reduce the MMR. Massive community engagement is required, especially among women, to understand the pregnancy danger signs. It can raise women’s awareness as to anticipate any dangers [11][4]. Women who perceive risks can immediately consult health workers.

Promoting right pregnancy danger signs need to be widely done in Indonesia. It is necessary because Indonesia has hundreds of ethnic groups with diverse cultures, some of which have conservative knowledge of pregnancies that are contradictory to modern midwifery knowledge [12][13]. Not only general public but also health workers who have received modern medical education still have conservative knowledge about pregnancy and childbirth [14].

This situation has raised an interesting question to analyze the determinants of knowledge of pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia. The results of this study may be clear and directed guidelines for policymakers in determining the policy objectives of disseminating the pregnancy danger signs to reduce the MMR in Indonesia.

Methods

Data source

The secondary data from the 2017 Indonesian Demographic Data Survey (IDHS) were used for analysis. The IDHS was part of the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) series. The DHS was internationally conducted by the Inner City Fund (ICF). The sampling method in the IDHS used stratification and multistage random sampling. In this study, the units of analysis were 85,832 women in childbearing age (15–49 years).

Procedure

The 2017 IDHS has passed the ethical test from the National Ethics Committee. The respondents' identities have all been deleted from the dataset. Respondents have provided written approval for their involvement in the study. The researchers obtained the consent of data utilization from ICF International by applying on their website: https://dhsprogram.com/data/new-user-registration.cfm.

Data analysis

Knowledge of pregnancy danger signs was defined as knowledge of dangers of prolonged labor, vaginal bleeding, fever, convulsions, breech position, swollen limbs, faint, breathlessness, tiredness, and others. Abilities to identify danger signs of pregnancy are divided into 2 categories; "do not know" and "know". Respondents were considered "know" when they claimed to know all pregnancy danger signs.

Independent variables involved in the analysis include types of residence, age groups, education level, employment status, marital status, wealth status, parity, autonomy of health, current pregnant status, frequency of reading newspaper/magazine, frequency of listening radio, and frequency of watching television. Types of residence are divided into 2 categories, which are “urban” and “rural”. Age group is divided into 7 categories with 5-year interval. Education level consists of 4 categories, such as “no education”, “primary education”, “secondary education” and “higher education”. Employment status is divided into 2 categories, such as “no employment” and “employment”.

Marital status is divided into 3 categories, for instance, “never in a union”, “married or living with partners”, and “widowed or divorced”. Wealth status is determined based on the wealth index calculation. Wealth index is a composite measure of a household's cumulative living standard. Wealth index was calculated by listing household ownership of selected assets, such as televisions and bicycles, materials used for housing construction, and types of water access and sanitation facilities. There are five categories of wealth index, such as “the poorest”, “poorer”, “middle”, “richer”, and “the richest”.

Parity, in addition, is the number of children ever born alive. Parity is divided into 3 categories, for instances, “primiparous (≤ 1)”, “multiparous (2–4)”, and “grand multiparous (>4)”. Autonomy of health is the independence to determine the needs of health services. Autonomy of health has 2 categories, which are “not having autonomy” and “having autonomy”. Current pregnancy is the current state of pregnancy status during the interview, which has 2 categories, “not pregnant” and “pregnant”.

The last variable group is media exposure, such as newspaper/magazine, radio, and television. Intensity of media exposure is categorized into “not at all”, “less than once a week”, and “at least once a week”.

The collinearity test was used at an early stage to ensure no collinearity between variables. All variables involved in the analysis were dichotomous variables, and thus the chi-square test was used to determine whether there are significant differences in knowledge of pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia. In the final stage, the binary logistic regression was used because of the nature of the dependent variable. All statistical analyses were carried out in SPSS 22 software.

Results

Table 1 figures out the results of the variable collinearity test as a predictor of knowledge of pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia. The collinearity test showed no collinearity between the dependent and independent variables.

Table 1. Results for the co-linearity test of knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia (n = 85,832).

VARIABLES COLLINEARITY STATISTICS
Tolerance VIF
Type of place of residence 0.758 1.319
Age 0.725 1.380
Education level 0.671 1.491
Employment status 0.944 1.059
Marital status 0.931 1.074
Wealth status 0.604 1.656
Parity 0.946 1.057
The autonomy of Health 0.734 1.362
Curently pregnant 0.975 1.025
Frequency of reading newspaper/magazine 0.741 1.349
Frequency of listening to a radio 0.873 1.145
Frequency of watching television 0.900 1.112
Open in a new tab

*Dependent Variable: Know of the pregnancy danger signs

The tolerance value of all variables as shown in Table 1 is greater than 0.10. While the VIF value for all variables is less than 10.00. Referring to the basis of multicollinearity test, it can be concluded that there was no multicollinearity in the regression model.

Descriptive results

Table 2 displays descriptive statistics of knowledge of pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia. Table 2 informs that women who did not know about the pregnancy danger signs were dominated by those who lived in rural areas. While women who knew the pregnancy danger signs predominantly lived in urban areas. The senior age group (45–49 years old) are domineted by women who did not know the pregnancy danger signs. While those who claimed to identify the danger signs were mostly in the middle age group.

Table 2. Descriptive statistic of knowledge of the danger signs of pregnancy in Indonesia (n = 85,832).

CHARACTERISTICS The Knowledge of the Pregnancy Danger Signs P
Do not know Know
n % n %
Type of place of residence ***< 0.001
    - Urban 14877 39.9% 26308 54.1%
    - Rural (ref.) 22370 60.1% 22277 45.9%
Age groups ***< 0.001
    - 15–19 (ref.) 233 0.6% 211 0.4%
    - 20–24 1327 3.6% 2021 4.2%
    - 25–29 3094 8.3% 5246 10.8%
    - 30–34 5489 14.7% 8892 18.3%
    - 35–39 8045 21.6% 11240 23.1%
    - 40–44 9147 24.6% 11246 23.1%
    - 45–49 9912 26.6% 9729 20.0%
Education level ***< 0.001
    - No education (ref.) 2161 5.8% 737 1.5%
    - Primary 18069 48.5% 14327 29.5%
    - Secondary 15287 41.0% 25839 53.2%
    - Higher 1730 4.6% 7682 15.8%
Employment status **0.005
    - No Employed 14647 39.3% 19569 40.3%
    - Employed 22600 60.7% 29016 59.7%
Marital status ***< 0.001
    - Never in union 33 0.1% 21 0.0%
    - Married/living with partner 34422 92.4% 45967 94.6%
    - Widowed/divorced 2792 7.5% 2597 5.3%
Wealth status ***< 0.001
    - Poorest (ref.) 13713 36.8% 10093 20.8%
    - Poorer 7974 21.4% 8783 18.1%
    - Middle 6449 17.3% 9065 18.7%
    - Richer 5222 14.0% 9901 20.4%
    - Richest 3889 10.4% 10743 22.1%
Parity ***< 0.001
    - Primiparous (ref.) 3139 8.4% 5493 11.3%
    - Multiparous 23984 64.4% 35149 72.3%
    - Grandemultiparous 10124 27.2% 7943 16.3%
The autonomy of Health ***< 0.001
    - No 22924 61.5% 27916 57.5%
    - Yes 14323 38.5% 20669 42.5%
Currently pregnant ***< 0.001
    - No 36352 97.6% 46938 96.6%
    - Yes 895 2.4% 1647 3.4%
Frequency of reading newspaper/magazine ***< 0.001
    - Not at all (ref.) 26740 71.8% 26407 54.4%
    - Less than once a week 8861 23.8% 16710 34.4%
    - At least once a week 1646 4.4% 5468 11.3%
Frequency of listening to a radio ***< 0.001
    - Not at all (ref.) 25721 69.1% 28178 58.0%
    - Less than once a week 8380 22.5% 14298 29.4%
    - At least once a week 3146 8.4% 6109 12.6%
Frequency of watching television ***< 0.001
    - Not at all (ref.) 3293 8.8% 1803 3.7%
    - Less than once a week 5574 15.0% 5666 11.7%
    - At least once a week 28380 76.2% 41116 84.6%
Open in a new tab

* p < 0.05

** p < 0.01

***p < 0.001.

Table 2 informs those with no knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs were dominated by female graduates by level of primary school. While women with secondary education predominantly know the pregnancy danger signs. In terms of employment status, both categories were dominated by employed women.

Table 2 shows that the poorest women mostly did not know the pregnancy danger signs. While women who knew the pregnancy danger signs had a more equitable distribution of wealth status.

In terms of parity variable, both categories were dominated by multiparous women. Most the respondents have their autonomy of health. In current pregnancy status, women who were not pregnant dominated the groups.

In addition, most of the respondents have no exposure to newspaper/magazine and radio. While the respondents mostly claimed to watch television at least once a week.

Multivariate regression analysis

The results of a binary logistic regression test on knowledge of pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia are illustrated in Table 3. This statistical test could determine the determinants of knowledge of pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia. As a reference, the chosen category was "do not know the pregnancy danger signs".

Table 3. Binary logistic regression of knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia (n = 85,832).

PREDICTOR The Knowledge of The Pregnancy Danger Signs
Sig. OR Lower Bound Upper Bound
Type of place of residence: Urban ***< 0.001 1.124 1.088 1.161
Type of place of residence: Rural - - - -
Age group: 15–19 - - - -
Age group: 20–24 ***< 0.001 1.545 1.259 1.897
Age group: 25–29 ***< 0.001 1.607 1.315 1.964
Age group: 30–34 ***< 0.001 1.576 1.290 1.925
Age group: 35–39 ***< 0.001 1.453 1.190 1.776
Age group: 40–44 **0.001 1.398 1.144 1.709
Age group: 45–49 0.069 1.205 .986 1.474
Education level: No Education - - - -
Education level: Primary ***< 0.001 1.646 1.506 1.800
Education level: Secondary ***< 0.001 2.582 2.357 2.828
Education level: Higher ***< 0.001 4.902 4.404 5.457
Employment status: Not employed - - - -
Employment status: Employed *0.013 0.963 0.934 0.992
Marital status: Never in union - - - -
Marital status: Married/living with partner *0.027 1.914 1.078 3.397
Marital status: Widowed/divorced 0.143 1.539 .865 2.737
Wealth status: Poorest - - - -
Wealth status: Poorer ***< 0.001 1.174 1.124 1.225
Wealth status: Middle ***< 0.001 1.337 1.277 1.401
Wealth status: Richer ***< 0.001 1.581 1.504 1.661
Wealth status: Richest ***< 0.001 1.758 1.662 1.859
Parity: Primiparous - - - -
Parity: Multiparous 0.571 0.984 0.931 1.040
Parity: Grande multiparous ***< 0.001 0.815 0.763 0.870
The autonomy of health: No - - - -
The autonomy of health: yes **0.001 1.053 1.022 1.085
Currently pregnant: No - - - -
Currently pregnant: Yes ***< 0.001 1.229 1.125 1.341
Freq. of reading news/magazine: Not at all (ref.) - - - -
Freq. of reading news/magazine: Less than once a week ***< 0.001 1.288 1.243 1.335
Freq. of reading news/magazine: At least once a week ***< 0.001 1.510 1.416 1.610
Freq. of listening radio: Not at all (ref.) - - - -
Freq. of listening radio: Less than once a week ***< 0.001 1.153 1.112 1.195
Freq. of listening radio: At least once a week ***< 0.001 1.234 1.174 1.297
Freq. of watching television: Not at all (ref.) - - - -
Freq. of watching television: Less than once a week ***< 0.001 1.204 1.119 1.294
Freq. of watching television: At least once a week ***< 0.001 1.344 1.258 1.435
Open in a new tab

*p < 0.05

** p < 0.01

***p < 0.001.

Table 3 depicts that women who lived in urban areas have 1.124 times chance to know the pregnancy danger signs than women in rural areas (OR 1.124; 95% CI 1.088–1.161). Older age groups have a better chance of knowing the pregnancy danger signs than those in the age of 15–19 years as reference. Only the groups aged 45–49 years have no difference with the reference age group.

Results show the more educated a woman is, the higher the likelihood of knowing the pregnancy danger signs is. Women with higher education were 4.902 times more likely to identify pregnancy danger signs than women with no education (OR 4.902; 95% CI 4.404–5.457). Employed women were 0.963 times more likely to spot pregnancy danger signs than unemployed women (OR 0.963; 95% CI 0.934–0.992).

While women who married or lived with partner had 1.914 times possibilities to identify pregnancy danger signs than women who have never been in relationship (OR 1.078–3.397). The better the wealth status of a woman is, the more knowledge of pregnancy danger signs is. The richest woman group had 1.758 times chances to have better knowledge than the poorest woman group (OR 1.758; 95% CI 1.662–1.859).

Besides, women with health insurance had 1.155 times chance for better knowledge of pregnancy danger signs than those without health insurance (OR 1.155; 95% CI 1.121–1.190). The possibility to have knowledge of pregnancy danger sings are 0.815 times for grand multiparous women (OR 0.815; 95% CI 0.763–0.870). Birth experience does not automatically improve the respondents’ knowledge of pregnancy danger signs.

Autonomy of health gave women 1.053 times chances to spot the pregnancy danger signs(OR 1.053; 95% CI 1.022–1.085). Women who were currently pregnant were 1.229 times more likely to know the pregnancy danger signs than women who were not currently pregnant (OR 1.229; 95% CI 1.125–1.341).

Frequent media exposure has a good impact on improving knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs. Women who read newspapers/magazines at least once a week had 1.510 times chances to identify the pregnancy danger signs than those who did not read newspapers/magazines (OR 1.510; 95% CI 1.416–1.610). Whereas, women who listened to radio at least once a week were 1.234 times more likely to have better knowledge (OR 1.234; 95% CI 1.174–1.297). The last point higlights that women who watched television at least once a week had 1.344 times chances to identify the pregnancy danger signs (OR 1.344; 95% CI 1.258–1.435).

Discussion

The findings reported that as many as 56.66% of pregnant women in Indonesia claimed to have knowledge of pregnancy danger signs. The percentage of pregnant woment with knowledge of pregnancy danger signs is higher compared to that in Ethiopia at 40.0% [3] and Nigeria at 42.4% [15]. A study in Papua New Guinea and Tanzania, however, found even much higher percentage. Research in Papua New Guinea informed that 60.2% of women could mention at least one of the pregnancy danger signs [16]. While in Tanzania only 57.8% of women could mention at least 1–3 the pregnancy danger signs [17].

The results also found that women in urban areas were more likely to identify the pregnancy danger signs than women in rural areas. These findings support several previous studies that focused on discussing about disparities between urban-rural areas in Indonesia. The development in health sector in Indonesia is indeed more massive in urban areas [18][19]. Similar research findings were also found in Somali and Northern Ethiopia [20][21].

Older age groups had a better chance of knowing the pregnancy danger signs than those aged 15–19 years as a reference. Only the age group of 45–49 years had no difference with the reference age group. The youngest age group tend to have less experience, and the oldest groups had a more conservative view. A systematic review and meta-analysis of women's knowledge of the obstetric danger signs in Ethiopia found similar results. Age is one of the variables that influences knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs, in addition to several other demographic characteristics [22].

Education also affects knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs. Women with higher education had more chances to identify the pregnancy danger signs. This study higlights the same findings as the research in Papua New Guinea, Ethiopia, and Tanzania. These studies discovered that women with secondary education had a better chance of knowing of the pregnancy danger signs than women with no education and primary education [16][23][17]. The results also found that employment also influenced knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs in Indonesian pregnant women. Several studies found similar results in Malaysia, Tanzania and Ethiopia [23][24][25].

Married/living with partner women had 1.914 times possibilities to have greater knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs compared to women who have never been in relationship. In Indonesia, women who are in relationship but are pregnant are considered as a social disgrace. This condition encourages women socially conceal themselves from society [26].

The better the wealth status of a woman is, the higher the possibility to have knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs is. Like education level, several other studies have also found that wealth status was proven to be positively related to knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs [24][25][26][27].

Grand multiparous women were less likely to have better knowledge than primiparous women, but birth experience did not automatically improve their knowledge. This study shows different results from several studies in India and Ethiopia. These studies found that multiparous women had a better chance to identify the pregnancy danger signs and obstetric complications [21][28][29].

Women who had autonomy of health had a better chance to know the pregnancy danger signs than women without autonomy. A meta-analysis of 12 studies in Ethiopia found the same results. Autonomy will increase knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs [22]. This present study discovered that women who were currently pregnant were more likely to know the pregnancy danger signs. Pregnancy experience will increase awareness and curiosity about their condition [21][30].

The analysis found that women who get more exposed to media had better knowledge. This finding is in line with the findings of other previous studies, which confirm that media exposure is the best tool for increasing knowledge [4]. Meanwhile, another study in Indonesia about the effects of the Maternal and Child Health Handbook on improving knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs found contradictory results. It was concluded that the Maternal and Child Health Handbook could not improve knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs [31].

In general, better knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs is one of the determinants of early pregnancy detection [4]. Vigilance against the pregnancy danger signs is one of the right strategies to reduce the maternal mortality [11]. Besides health workers [32], mass media is the most popular source of searching more information about the pregnancy danger signs [30].

Conclusions

In conclusion, all variables tested were the determinants of knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs in Indonesia. These variables were types of residence, age groups, education level, employment status, marital status, wealth status, health insurance, parity, autonomy of health, current pregnant status, frequency of reading newspaper/magazine, frequency of listening to the radio, and frequency of watching television.

The government has to formulate structured policies for the targets to expand the dissemination of knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs. This study recommends the government to focus on the research findings in relation to determine the policy targets.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of the data are owned by a third party and authors do not have permission to share the data. The 2017 IDHS data set name requested from the ICF ('data set of childbearing age women') are available from the ICF (contact via https://dhsprogram.com/data/new-user-registration.cfm) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Mulugeta AK, Giru BW, Berhanu B, Demelew TM. Knowledge about birth preparedness and complication readiness and associated factors among primigravida women in Addis Ababa governmental health facilities, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015. Reprod Health. 2020;17: Article number 15. 10.1186/s12978-020-0861-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. Maternal mortality. Geneva; 2019. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality
  • 3.Wassihun B, Negese B, Bedada H, Bekele S, Bante A, Yeheyis T, et al. Knowledge of obstetric danger signs and associated factors: a study among mothers in Shashamane town, Oromia region, Ethiopia. Reprod Health. 2020;17: 4 10.1186/s12978-020-0853-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mardiyanti I, Nursalam, Devy SR, Ernawati. The independence of pregnant women in early detection of high risk of pregnancy in terms of parity, knowledge and information exposure. J Public Health Africa. 2019;10: Article number 1180. 10.4081/jphia.2019.1180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Belay HG, Limenih MA. Intents of women on obstetric danger signs and its associated factors in Farta Woreda, Ethiopia, 2017. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2020;31: 140–152. 10.1353/hpu.2020.0014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Data and Information Center Ministry of Health. Mother’s Day: Maternal Health Situation. Jakarta; 2014. Available: http://www.depkes.go.id/download.php?file=download/pusdatin/infodatin/infodatin-ibu.pdf
  • 7.Widyaningtyas T. Red Report Card on the Death Rate of Indonesian Mothers (Rapor Merah Angka Kematian Ibu Indonesia). Jakarta; 2018. Available: https://katadata.co.id/analisisdata/2018/05/30/rapor-merah-angka-kematian-ibu-indonesia
  • 8.Communication and Community Service Bureau Ministry of Health. 4 Health Targets Must Be Achieved by 2019 (4 Target Kesehatan ini Harus Tercapai di 2019). In: Press Release [Internet]. 2019 pp. 1–4. Available: http://www.depkes.go.id/article/view/18030700008/4-target-kesehatan-ini-harus-tercapai-di-2019.html
  • 9.World Health Organization. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2015: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and the United Nations Population Division. Geneva; 2015. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/194254/9789241565141_eng.pdf;jsessionid=AB201B62E0913D576E5CF9430F900F98?sequence=1
  • 10.Achadi EL. Maternal and Neonatal Death in Indonesia (Kematian Maternal dan Neotatal di Indonesia). Jakarta; 2019. Available: http://www.depkes.go.id/resources/download/info-terkini/rakerkesnas-2019/SESII/Kelompok 1/1-Kematian-Maternal-dan-Neonatal-di-Indonesia.pdf
  • 11.Ogu RN, Ngozi O. Reducing Maternal Mortality: Awareness of Danger Signs in Pregnancy. Asian J Med Heal. 2017;6: 1–8. 10.9734/AJMAH/2017/35022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Laksono AD, Soerachman R, Angkasawati TJ. Case Study of Muyu Ethnic’s Maternal Health in Mindiptara District-Boven Digoel (Studi Kasus Kesehatan Maternal Suku Muyu di Distrik Mindiptana, Kabupaten Boven Digoel). J Reprod Heal. 2016;07/03: 145–155. 10.22435/kespro.v7i3.4349.145-155 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pratiwi NL, Fitrianti Y, Nuraini S, Rachmawati T, Laksono AD, Afreni M, et al. Concealed Pregnant Women or Kemel of Gayo Ethnic in Blang Pegayon District, Gayo Lues District, Aceh. Bull Heal Syst Res. 2019;22: 81–90. 10.22435/hsr.v22i2.1693 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Laksono AD, Faizin K. Traditions Influence Into Behavior in Health Care; Ethnographic Case Study on Health Workers Muyu Tribe. Bull Heal Syst Res. 2015;18: 347–354. 10.22435/hsr.v18i4.4567.347-354 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Oguntunde O, Nyenwa J, Yusuf FM, Dauda DS, Salihu A, Sinai I. Factors associated with knowledge of obstetric danger signs and perceptions of the need for obstetric care among married men in northern Nigeria: A cross-sectional survey. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19: Article number 123. 10.1186/s12884-019-2271-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vallely LM, Emori R, Gouda H, Phuanukoonnon S, Homer CSE, Vallely A. Women’s knowledge of maternal danger signs during pregnancy: Findings from a cross-sectional survey in Papua New Guinea. Midwifery. 2019;72: 7–13. 10.1016/j.midw.2019.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mwilike B, Nalwadda G, Kagawa M, Malima K, Mselle L, Horiuchi S. Knowledge of danger signs during pregnancy and subsequent healthcare seeking actions among women in Urban Tanzania: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18: 1–8. 10.1186/s12884-017-1633-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Laksono AD, Wulandari RD, Soedirham O. Urban and Rural Disparities in Hospital Utilization among Indonesian Adults. Iran J Public Health. 2019;48: 247–255. Available: http://ijph.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijph/article/view/16143 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wulandari RD, Laksono AD. Urban-Rural Disparity: The Utilization of Primary Health Care Center Among Elderly in East Java, Indonesia. J Adm Kesehat Indones. 2019;7: 147–154. 10.20473/jaki.v7i2.2019.147-154 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Woldeamanuel GG, Lemma G, Zegeye B. Knowledge of obstetric danger signs and its associated factors among pregnant women in Angolela Tera District, Northern Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12: Article number 606. 10.1186/s13104-019-4639-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Maseresha N, Woldemichael K, Dube L. Knowledge of obstetric danger signs and associated factors among pregnant women in Erer district, Somali region, Ethiopia. BMC Womens Health. 2016;16: Article number 30. 10.1186/s12905-016-0309-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Geleto A, Chojenta C, Musa A, Loxton D. WOMEN’s Knowledge of Obstetric Danger signs in Ethiopia (WOMEN’s KODE):a systematic review and meta-analysis 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1117 Public Health and Health Services. Syst Rev. 2019;8: Article number 63. 10.1186/s13643-019-0979-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bililign N, Mulatu T. Knowledge of obstetric danger signs and associated factors among reproductive age women in Raya Kobo district of Ethiopia: A community based cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17: Article number 70. 10.1186/s12884-017-1253-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Teng SPSP, Zuo TCTC, Jummaat FBFB, Keng SLSL. Knowledge of pregnancy danger signs and associated factors among Malaysian mothers. Br J Midwifery. 2015;23: 800–806. 10.12968/bjom.2015.23.11.800 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bintabara D, Mpembeni RNM, Mohamed AA. Knowledge of obstetric danger signs among recently-delivered women in Chamwino district, Tanzania: A cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17: Article number 276. 10.1186/s12884-017-1469-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dedi D. Marriage of Pregnant Women Because of Adultery: Descriptive Study of Islamic Law on KHI Article 53 and Ulama Opinion (Perkawinan Wanita Hamil Karena Zina: Studi Deskriptif Hukum Islam terhadap KHI Pasal 53 dan Pendapat Ulama). Al-Afkar, J Islam Stud. 2019;2: 68–87. 10.31943/afkar_journal.v4i1.60 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Salem A, Lacour O, Scaringella S, Herinianasolo J, Benski AC, Stancanelli G, et al. Cross-sectional survey of knowledge of obstetric danger signs among women in rural Madagascar. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18: Article number 46. 10.1186/s12884-018-1664-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Amenu G, Mulaw Z, Seyoum T, Bayu H. Knowledge about Danger Signs of Obstetric Complications and Associated Factors among Postnatal Mothers of Mechekel District Health Centers, East Gojjam Zone, Northwest Ethiopia, 2014. Scientifica (Cairo). 2016;2016: Article number 3495416. 10.1155/2016/3495416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Haleema M, Raghuveer P, Kiran R, Mohammed IM, Mohammed ISA, Mohammed M. Assessment of knowledge of obstetric danger signs among pregnant women attending a teaching hospital. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2019;8: 1422–1426. 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_149_19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vijay NR, Kumare B, Yerlekar DS. Awareness of obstetric danger signs among pregnant women in tertiary care teaching hospital. J SAFOG. 2015;7: 171–175. 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1350 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tjandraprawira KD, Ghozali I. Knowledge of Pregnancy and Its Danger Signs Not Improved by Maternal and Child Health Handbook. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2019;69: 218–224. 10.1007/s13224-018-1162-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Assaf S. Counseling and Knowledge of Danger Signs of Pregnancy Complications in Haiti, Malawi, and Senegal. Matern Child Health J. 2018;22: 1659–1667. 10.1007/s10995-018-2563-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Frank T Spradley

11 Mar 2020

PONE-D-20-02732

The Determinant of Knowledge of The Pregnancy Danger Signs in Indonesia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Wulandari,

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.

SPECIFIC ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS: Your manuscript was handled by an expert reviewer in the field. Although interest was found in this study, there were several major comments that arose, which need addressing. These comments and concerns relate to the need for the English to be carefully proofed. Furthermore, the data sources used in this analyses should include more up-to-date studies. There are also manuscript-fundamentals that require attention whereby the introduction needs better rationale explaining the need to conduct this study and its novelty; the methods need more specifics about inclusion criteria; and the discussion should be supported by published studies and the current findings from this analysis.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 25 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,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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: 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: 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: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled: "The determinant of knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs"

However, It is unfortunate that the journal did not provide me the article with line numbers track, that makes a bit difficult to give more details comments.

Please find below is my comments:

- An English Language editing will make the article more interesting to read as I found some words were not put in the correct way, e.g. page 3 – almost 2 times that of Cambodia… etc.

- The data source was from the 2017 IDHS data meaning the data was gathered could be a year before or more. A new information may exist.

- It is unclear the inclusion criteria for a woman childbearing age (15-49), as 15 -19 used as reference for some data, were any of those women aged 15 years old experience pregnancy?

- Were there any data regarding the MMR in pregnancy because the women had chronic disease?

- The discussion was not support with a strong evidence from previous studies that explain the knowledge of pregnancy danger signs have a significant correlation with MMR

- The background need to be added with some literature that explains the gap in the literature why is so important to do this research.

**********

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

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: The Determinant of Knowledge of The Pregnancy Danger.docx

Click here for additional data file. (13.2KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2020 May 20;15(5):e0232550. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232550.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

18 Mar 2020

1) An English Language editing will make the article more interesting to read as I found some words were not put in the correct way, e.g. page 3 – almost 2 times that of Cambodia… etc.

Thank you for the advice. The revised manuscript was professionally edited.

2) The data source was from the 2017 IDHS data meaning the data was gathered could be a year before or more. A new information may exist.

The latest official release of MMR is not yet available by the Indonesian government.

3) It is unclear the inclusion criteria for a woman childbearing age (15-49), as 15 -19 used as reference for some data, were any of those women aged 15 years old experience pregnancy?

Based on the information in Table 2, there are 444 women aged 15-19 who experience pregnancy.

4) Were there any data regarding the MMR in pregnancy because the women had chronic disease?

No information is available for the data was mentioned.

5) The discussion was not support with a strong evidence from previous studies that explain the knowledge of pregnancy danger signs have a significant correlation with MMR

Globally, at least one woman dies every minute during pregnancy and childbirth [1]. Deaths due to pregnancy complications and vaginal birth can be easily prevented [2][3]. Prevention can be done by increasing knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs, which has a strong correlation with early detection of pregnancy risks. Women who know the pregnancy danger signs are at 6.657 times more likely than those who do not understand about early detection of pregnancy risks [4]. Knowledge of pregnancy danger signs has a strong correlation with antenatal care [3]. Women who can identify the pregnancy danger signs are 3.470 times more likely to participate in antenatal care [5]. It is an evidence that knowledge of pregnancy danger signs as well as Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR).

6) The background need to be added with some literature that explains the gap in the literature why is so important to do this research.

Globally, at least one woman dies every minute during pregnancy and childbirth [1]. Deaths due to pregnancy complications and vaginal birth can be easily prevented [2][3]. Prevention can be done by increasing knowledge of the pregnancy danger signs, which has a strong correlation with early detection of pregnancy risks. Women who know the pregnancy danger signs are at 6.657 times more likely than those who do not understand about early detection of pregnancy risks [4]. Knowledge of pregnancy danger signs has a strong correlation with antenatal care [3]. Women who can identify the pregnancy danger signs are 3.470 times more likely to participate in antenatal care [5]. It is an evidence that knowledge of pregnancy danger signs as well as Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (16.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Frank T Spradley

17 Apr 2020

Determinant of Knowledge of Pregnancy Danger Signs in Indonesia

PONE-D-20-02732R1

Dear Dr. Wulandari,

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,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

**********

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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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 authors has addressed most of the comments in the revised manuscript. Although I found the discussion is not deep enough explained about the results or data compared to previous studies. It could be better presentation if the authors add more evidence in the previous studies.

**********

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: No

Acceptance letter

Frank T Spradley

8 May 2020

PONE-D-20-02732R1

Determinants of Knowledge of Pregnancy Danger Signs in Indonesia

Dear Dr. Wulandari:

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

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

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

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: The Determinant of Knowledge of The Pregnancy Danger.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (13.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (16.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of the data are owned by a third party and authors do not have permission to share the data. The 2017 IDHS data set name requested from the ICF ('data set of childbearing age women') are available from the ICF (contact via https://dhsprogram.com/data/new-user-registration.cfm) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES