Factors associated with unmet need for limiting childbirth among women living with HIV in Togo: An averaging approach

Issifou Yaya; Aboubakari Nambiema; Sokhna Dieng; Lihanimpo Djalogue; Mawuényégan Kouamivi Agboyibor; Mathias Kouamé N’Dri; Takiyatou Baba-Toherou; Akouda Akessiwe Patassi; Dadja Essoya Landoh; Kanfitine Kolani; Abdoul-Samadou Aboubakari; Bayaki Saka

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233136

. 2020 May 20;15(5):e0233136. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233136

Factors associated with unmet need for limiting childbirth among women living with HIV in Togo: An averaging approach

Issifou Yaya ^1,², Aboubakari Nambiema ², Sokhna Dieng ³, Lihanimpo Djalogue ⁴, Mawuényégan Kouamivi Agboyibor ⁵, Mathias Kouamé N’Dri ⁶, Takiyatou Baba-Toherou ², Akouda Akessiwe Patassi ⁷, Dadja Essoya Landoh ⁸, Kanfitine Kolani ⁹, Abdoul-Samadou Aboubakari ¹⁰, Bayaki Saka ^11,^*

Editor: Kwasi Torpey¹²

¹IRD, INSERM, Univ Montpellier, TransVIHMI, Montpellier, France

²Association des Chercheurs Africains en Santé des Populations (ACASP), Paris, France

³Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Marseille, France

⁴Service de Médecine Interne, CHU Kara, Kara, Togo

⁵Espoir Vie Togo, Lomé, Togo

⁶Département Épidémiologie-Recherche Clinique, Unité d’Épidémiologie, Institut Pasteur de Côte d’Ivoire, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire

⁷Service de Maladies Infectieuses, CHU Sylvanus Olympio, Université de Lomé, Lomé, Togo

⁸World Health Organization, Country Office of Togo, Lomé, Togo

⁹Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Clinique Biasa, Lomé, Togo

¹⁰Service de Gynéco-Obstétrique, CHU Kara, Kara, Togo

¹¹Service de Dermatologie, CHU Sylvanus Olympio, Lomé, Togo

¹²University of Ghana College of Health Sciences, GHANA

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

^✉

* E-mail: barthelemysaka@yahoo.fr

Roles

Issifou Yaya: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Aboubakari Nambiema: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Sokhna Dieng: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Lihanimpo Djalogue: Data curation, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Mawuényégan Kouamivi Agboyibor: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft

Mathias Kouamé N’Dri: Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft

Takiyatou Baba-Toherou: Data curation, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

Akouda Akessiwe Patassi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

Dadja Essoya Landoh: Data curation, Validation, Writing – original draft

Kanfitine Kolani: Data curation, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft

Abdoul-Samadou Aboubakari: Data curation, Validation, Writing – original draft

Bayaki Saka: Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Kwasi Torpey: Editor

PMCID: PMC7239477 PMID: 32433689

Abstract

Background

Access to antiretroviral treatment has improved the life expectancy of HIV-positive patients, most often associated with a desire to limit childbearing. Women living with HIV (WLHIV) commonly have unmet need for contraception and could be at risk of unintended pregnancy. Preventing unintended pregnancies among women living with HIV are effective strategies to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess unmet need for limiting childbirth and its associated factors among women living with HIV in Togo.

Methods

This facility based cross-sectional study was conducted, between June and August 2016, among WLHIV in their reproductive age (15–49 years) in HIV-care settings in Centrale and Kara regions Data was collected using a structured and pretested questionnaire. WLHIV who desired to limit childbirth but not using contraception were considered to have unmet need of birth limitations. Univariate and multivariate Poisson regression models with robust variance were performed to identify associated factors with unmet needs. A multi-model averaging approach was used to estimate the degree of the association between these factors and the unmet need of birth limitations.

Results

A total of 443 WLHIV were enrolled, with mean age of 34.5 years (standard deviation [SD] = 7.0). Among them 244 (55.1%) were in couple and 200 (45.1%) had at least the secondary level of education. 39.1% were followed-up in a private healthcare facility. At the time of the survey, 40.0% did not desire childbearing but only 9.0% (95% CI [6.7–12.1]) of them expressed unmet needs for limiting childbirth. In multivariable analysis, associated factors with unmet needs of birth limitations were: being aged 35 years or more (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) = 3.11, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) [1.52–6.38]), living in couple (aPR = 2.32 [1.15–4.65]), living in Kara region (aPR = 0.10 [0.01–0.76]), being followed in a private healthcare facility (aPR = 0.08[0.01–0.53]) and having severe HIV symptoms (aPR = 3.50 [1.31–9.37]).

Conclusion

Even though the unmet need for births limitation was relatively low among WLHIV in Togo, interventions to improve more access to contraceptive methods, and targeting 35 to 49 years old women, those in couple or followed in the public healthcare facilities would contribute to the eradication of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Background

Improving the reproductive health of women living with HIV (WLHIV), including access to high-quality services for family planning would help slow the HIV epidemic in low- and middle-income countries [1]. In low-income countries women are disproportionately affected by HIV [2,3]. For every three new HIV infections among young men aged 15–24 years in Western and Central Africa there were five new infections among young women [3,4]. It is estimated that women account for nearly two-thirds of the people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in this region.

WLHIV of reproductive age might continue to spread the HIV epidemic through the transmission of HIV to their children during pregnancy or breastfeeding. For HIV-positive pregnant women, in the absence of any intervention related to HIV prevention, the risk of HIV transmission from mother to child is estimated at 15%–30% during pregnancy and childbirth, and 10% to 20% during breast-feeding [5–7]. In 2016, about 87% (140,000 cases) of new HIV infections worldwide among children occurred, the vast majority (over 90%) through mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) during pregnancy, delivery or breast feeding periods [1], in 23 sub-Saharan African countries, where a 48% decline in new child infections since 2010 was reported [8].

Prevention of MTCT of HIV, advocated by WHO as one of the most effective strategies in the fight against HIV/AIDS, is receiving increasing attention at the international, regional and national levels. Access to antiretroviral treatment (ART) and preventing unintended pregnancies among WLHIV are effective strategies to eliminate MTCT [8,9].

In Western and Central Africa, it was estimated 330,000 the number of pregnant women living with HIV in 2017, of whom less than half (42%) received ART to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Consequently, the rate of mother-to-child transmission (including during the breastfeeding period) was 20.2% [10]. Family planning (FP), by preventing unintended pregnancies and helping to space childbirth for women and couples living with HIV, constitute an important measures to prevent MTCT of HIV [11,12]. Several studies have shown low prevalence of contraceptive use among HIV-positive compared to their HIV-negative counterparts [13,14], and therefore they have higher unmet need for FP and reproductive health services [15,16], and higher level of unplanned pregnancy [17,18]. The unmet need for FP is increasingly a reliable indicator of reproductive health among WLHIV [11,19,20]. The level of unmet need in FP is the result of several factors, including individual, contextual or structural factors. In low-income countries, availability, cost and geographic accessibility are major barriers to contraceptive use in women of reproductive age, including WLHIV. In a DHS-based study addressing unmet need for FP in WLHIV in Lesotho, Adair [21] found that currently HIV-positive married women, or older WLHIV, were more likely to reported unmet need for FP, while WLHIV with higher household wealth reported lower level of unmet need for FP. But what about the prevalence of unmet need for FP in WLHIV in west Africa, particularly in Togo? And how can we explain it among this group? Even if few studies have examined the use of modern contraception in WLHIV, little is known about unmet need for limiting childbirth among WLHIV in Togo.

A previous study among WLHIV of childbearing age in Togo found a prevalence of 73.1% for the use of modern contraceptives (74.7% for condom use alone and 16.9% in combination with hormonal contraceptive) [22]. It was also reported in that study the education level, marital status, WHO clinical stage, follow-up in private care facilities and having a child were associated factors modern contraception use [22].

This study aimed to assess the prevalence and identify associated factors of unmet need for limiting childbirth among WLHIV attending HIV clinics in two regions of Togo.

Methods

Study design

Between May and August 2016, a cross-sectional study was conducted among WLHIV of reproductive age (15–49 years) and sexually active attending HIV clinics in two health regions of Togo including the Centrale and Kara regions.

Setting and study population

More than 30 medical clinics were accredited to deliver HIV-related care in the Centrale and Kara regions, two of the Togo’s six health regions located about 350 km and 420 km from the capital city Lomé, respectively. About 10,361 PLWHA, including 616 children were followed-up in these two health regions [23]. The prevalence of HIV infection in these two regions was 2.2% in the Centrale region and 1.8% in the Kara region in 2013 [24]. The both health regions are characterized by important population mobility seasonally, mainly from the surrounding health regions, and sometimes from outside of the country, occurring during the cultural and traditional events that could increase the risks of HIV transmission.

WLHIV aged 15–49 years who reported a sexual partner in the six months prior the study and who were followed-up at selected study’s sites for HIV care or active ART (for at least 6 months) were included in this study. But women who were pregnant at the moment of the study were excluded.

Sampling

The sampling procedure was described in a previous study [22]. In order to ensure representative HIV clinics with a high number of PLWHA, we performed a random probability sampling proportional to the number of patients in the active file of the 30 HIV clinics in the two regions. We assumed that a sample of 15% of HIV clinics should be representative of all the HIV clinics. This led to the random selection of 5 HIV clinics for the implementation of this study. “Then, a non-probabilistic, convenience sampling was performed” [22]. In the selected HIV clinics, it was proposed to participate to this study, any PLWHA who were admitted in the active file for a follow-up from May to August 2016, who met the inclusion criteria and who signed the consent form to participate in the study. “The prevalence of unmet needs for limiting childbirth among WLHIV was assumed to be 50% with the precision of 5%, 20% refusal or incomplete data and the design effect was estimated at 1. Based on this assumption, the sample size was estimated at 461 WLHIV” [22].

Data collection

Data was collected on a face-to-face basis among participants using a structured and pretested questionnaire in French, explained in the local language for participants if needed. For each participant, the questionnaire was filled by a trained health worker. This questionnaire included socio-demographic information, clinical features, information on ART, sexual activity status and on contraceptives knowledge and its use. Data on HIV status disclosure to the sexual partner was also collected. We defined unmet needs for limiting childbirth as the fecund women who were sexually active and intend to stop childbearing (limiting) but were not using any contraceptive method. We did not included needs for birth spacing.

Data’s statistical analysis

Data entry was performed using Epi Data software version 3.1. Data were then exported for statistical analyses using STATA/SE, version 15.1 (Statacorp LP, College Station, Texas, USA).

In descriptive analysis step, for continuous variables, mean and standard deviation were calculated while for categorical variables we calculated proportions. Our main outcome variable was WLHIV who reported unmet needs for limiting childbirth coded 1 and 0 if else. Pearson chi-square test or Fisher′s exact test were used when appropriate in bivariate analysis All variables significant during bivariate analysis at a p-value <0.10 were included in a multivariate model.

A multivariable Poisson regression analysis was performed to identify independent factors associated with the dichotomous outcome “unmet needs for limiting childbirth or no”. The estimates were presented as prevalence ratio (PR). All these analyses were performed with 95% confident interval (CI).

A multimodal averaging method was therefore performed using both a Poisson regression model (with robust variance) and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) for weighting models, based on the contribution of each covariate in explaining the risk of unmet needs for limiting childbirth. This process helps not only to select a final model (all the possible models) with Poisson regression procedures, but also to rank the covariates according to their relative importance. It compares the likelihood of an empty model with the likelihood of the model with covariates, provides also the proportion of the variation explained by the specified model. This averaging multimodel approach was described elsewhere [25].

In addition, we used relative importance weights (values between 0 and 1) to classify the associated factors according to the weight of the evidence with the following classification [26]: [0–0.5 [= no evidence; [0.5–0.75 [= weak evidence; [0.75–0.95 [= positive evidence; [0.95–0.99 [= strong evidence; [0.99–1 [= very strong evidence.

Ethical issues

This study was approved by the National AIDS and STI Program of Togo (Ref N° 098/2016/MS/DSSP/PNLS-IST). We obtained consent from patients that participated in the study. For each respondent, the objectives and benefits of participating in the survey and its conduct were clearly stated, as well as their right to interrupt the interview without justification. An informed consent form signed after the verbal explanation was made by the investigating officer in the language understood by the participant. For participants the aged between 15 and 17, we asked for the consent of the parents or the legal guardian.

Results

Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics

Table 1 shows the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the participants. In total 461 WLHIV of reproductive age and sexually active were enrolled into this study, we excluded 18 (3.9%) participants who were pregnant at the time of the survey. Of the 443 participants, 252 (56.9%) were living in the Centrale health region and 191 (43.1%) in the Kara health region. The mean ± (Standard Deviation) age of the participants was 34.5±7.0 years, ranging from 16 to 49 years, and half of them aged 35 years or older. Among participants, 40.9% had primary education level, and 45.1% had secondary or higher education level, 55.1% lived in couple and 62.5% lived in urban area. Of the 443 WLHIV who were interviewed, 403 (91.0%) were on ART and for more than two years for 71.4% of them. The mean duration on ART was 4.1 years ± 2.8 (SD). A quarter (25.7%) of participants had a CD4 cells count < 350 cells/mm³ at the last visit. At the time of the survey, 52.4% of participants reported moderate HIV symptoms, while symptoms were severe in 4.5% of participants. The partner’s HIV status was unknown for 42.4% (188/443) of participants. Most of the patients were followed-up in a public healthcare facility (60.9%), with a psychologist (56.7%). Three hundred and sixty-three participants had at least one child at the time of the survey.

Table 1. Characteristics of the study participants (WLHI, N = 443).

	n (%)	Unmet needs		p-value
	n (%)	No, n (%)	Yes, n (%)	p-value
Age, (mean±SD) years (443)	34.5±7.0			0.004
< 35	218 (49.2)	207 (95.0)	11 (5.0)
35–49	225 (50.8)	196 (87.1)	29 (12.9)
Education level				0.161
No education	62 (14.0)	58 (93.5)	4 (6.5)
Primary	181 (40.9)	159 (87.9)	22 (12.1)
Secondary and more	200 (45.1)	186 (93.0)	14 (7.0)
Profession of participant				0.187**
Public sector	33 (7.4)	31 (93.9)	2 (6.1)
Private sector	19 (4.3)	18 (94.7)	1 (5.3)
Informal sector	226 (51.0)	199 (88.1)	27 (11.9)
No profession	165 (37.3)	155 (93.9)	10 (6.1)
Marital status				0.020
In couple	244 (55.1)	215 (88.1)	29 (11.9)
Single	199 (44.9)	188 (94.5)	11 (5.5)
Residence of patient				0.735
Urban	277 (62.5)	251 (90.6)	26 (9.4)
Rural	166 (37.5)	152 (91.6)	14 (8.4)
Region				0.015
Centrale	252 (56.9)	222 (88.1)	30 (11.9)
Kara	191 (43.1)	181 (94.8)	10 (5.2)
Religion				0.664**
None	38 (8.6)	36 (94.7)	2 (5.3)
Islam	148 (33.4)	135 (91.2)	13 (8.8)
Christianism	257 (58.0)	232 (90.3)	25 (9.7)
WHO’s clinical stage				0.013
Stage I	243 (55.2)	226 (93.0)	17 (7.0)
Stage II	118 (26.8)	109 (92.4)	9 (7.6)
Stage III & IV	79 (18.0)	65 (82.3)	14 (17.7)
Symptoms’ Intensity				0.018
None	191 (43.1)	170 (89.0)	21 (11.0)
Moderate	232 (52.4)	218 (94.0)	14 (6.0)
Severe	20 (4.5)	15 (75.0)	5 (25.0)
CD4 cell counts				0.789
< 350	114 (25.7)	103 (90.4)	11 (9.7)
≥ 350	329 (74.3)	300 (91.2)	29 (8.8)
ART				0.389
Yes	403 (91.0)	368 (91.3)	35 (8.7)
No	40 (9.0)	35 (87.5)	5 (12.5)
ART’s scheme (n = 403)				0.340*
1rst line	370 (91.8)	336 (90.8)	34 (9.2)
2nd line	33 (8.2)	32 (97.0)	1 (3.0)
ART duration (= 414)				0.669
< 2 years	115 (28.6)	104 (90.4)	11 (9.6)
≥2 years	287 (71.4)	263 (91.6)	24 (8.4)
Partner’s HIV status				0.583
Unknown	188 (42.4)	174 (92.5)	14 (7.5)
HIV-positive	134 (30.3)	121 (90.3)	13 (9.7)
HIV-negative	121 (27.3)	108 (89.3)	13 (10.7)
Type of health center				<0.0001
Private	173 (39.1)	168 (97.1)	5 (2.9)
Public	270 (60.9)	235 (87.0)	35 (13.0)
Presence of psychologist in the center				0.004
No	192 (43.3)	166 (86.5)	26 (13.5)
Yes	251 (56.7)	237 (94.4)	14 (5.6)
Number of children				0.037
None	53 (12.7)	51 (96.1)	2 (4.7)
1–3	304 (73.1)	279 (91.8)	25 (8.2)
4–7	59 (14.2)	49 (83.0)	10 (17.0)
Fertility desire				<0.0001
No	175 (40.0)	135 (77.1)	40 (22.9)
Yes	263 (60.0)	263 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Contraceptive methods				<0.0001
None	119 (26.9)	80 (67.2)	39 (32.7)
Condom alone	242 (54.6)	241 (99.6)	1 (0.4)
Condom+hormonal contraceptive	55 (12.4)	55 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Hormonal contraceptive	26 (5.9)	26 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Intrauterine devices	1 (0.2)	1 (100.0)	0 (0.0)

Open in a new tab

Unmet needs for limiting childbirth

Based on the conceptual definition in this study, 9.0% (95%CI [6.7–12.1]) of participants expressed unmet needs for limiting childbirth. However, this prevalence varies cross participants characteristics. Indeed, the proportion of participants with unmet needs was significantly lower (p = 0.004) among under 35 women than those aged from 35 years and older (5.0% vs 12.9%). A higher proportion of participants in couple (11.9%, p = 0.020), those having four children or more (17.0%, p = 0.037) and those who reported severe HIV symptoms (25.0%, p = 0.008) expressed also unmet needs for limiting childbirth during this study. However, WLHIV living in the Kara health region (p = 0.015), those followed-up in private healthcare facility (p = 0.001) or those followed-up in a center with a psychologist (p = 0.004) were less susceptible to report unmet needs for limiting childbirth (Table 1).

Factors associated with unmet needs for limiting childbirth

After adjustment for significant covariates (with a p-value <0.10), multivariable analysis revealed a strong association between unmet needs for limiting childbirth, age of patients and the type of healthcare facility, a positive association with marital status and intensity of HIV symptoms and a weak association with the health region. In this study, older participants were more likely to report unmet needs for limiting childbirth than the younger. The prevalence of unmet needs for limiting childbirth was almost three times higher in WLHIV aged 35 or older (aPR = 3.11, 95%CI [1.52–6.38]; p = 0.002) than those aged less than 35 years. Concerning the marital status, the prevalence of unmet needs for limiting childbirth was two times higher among participants living in couple (aPR = 2.32 [1.15–4.65]; p = 0.018) compared to those who were single. Prevalence of unmet needs for limiting childbirth were 90% and 92% lower among patients respectively living in the Kara region (aPR = 0.10 [0.01–0.76]; p = 0.026) and followed in a private healthcare center (aPR = 0.08 [0.01–0.53]; p = 0.009) than respectively those living in the Centrale region and those who were followed in a public settings. Finally, WLHIV who reported severe HIV symptoms were more likely to express unmet needs for limiting childbirth (aPR: 3.50, 95%CI [1.31–9.37]; p = 0.013) than those without HIV symptoms (Table 2).

Table 2. Factors associated with unmet needs for limiting childbirth (multi-model averaging, N = 443).

	Poisson regression models
	Univariate		Multivariate		Akaike weights (level of evidence)	Rank
	cPR	p-value	aPR	p-value	Akaike weights (level of evidence)	Rank
Age, years
< 35	1		1
35–49	2.55 [1.22–4.28]	0.006	3.46 [1.76–6.82]	<0.0001	0.99 (strong)	1
Education level
No education	1
Primary	1.88 [0.67–5.26]	0.227
Secondary and more	1.09 [0.37–3.20]	0.882
Profession of participant
No profession	1
Public sector	1.0 [0.23–4.36]	1.0
Private sector	0.86 [0.12–6.43]	0.890
Informal sector	1.97 [0.98–3.96]	0.057
Marital status
In couple	2.15 [1.10–4.20]	0.025	2.28 [1.23–4.24]	0.009	0.87 (positive)	3
Single	1		1
Residence of patient
Urban	1
Rural	0.90 [0.48–1.67]	0.736
Region
Centrale	1		1
Kara	0.44 [0.22–0.88]	0.020	0.10 [0.01–0.82]	0.032	0.68 (weak)	5
Religion
None	1
Islam	1.67 [0.39–7.09]	0.488
Christianism	1.84 [0.46–7.50]	0.390
Symptoms’ Intensity
None	1		1
Moderate/severe	0.55 [0.29–1.05]	0.070	0.70 [0.37–1.34]	0.286	0.89 (positive)	4
	2.27 [0.96–5.38]	0.061	4.39 [1.90–10.14]	0.001
CD4 cell counts
< 350	1
≥ 350	0.91 [0.47–1.77]	0.879
ART
No	1
Yes	0.69 [0.29–1.67]	0.417]
ART’s scheme (n = 415)
1rst line	1
2nd line	0.33 [0.05–2.34]	0.267
ART duration (= 414)
< 2 years	1
≥2 years	0.87 [0.44–1.73	0.699
Knowledge of partner’s		0.284
HIV status
No	1
Yes	1.37 [0.73–2.55]	0.323
Type of health center
Public	1		1
Private	0.22 [0.09–0.56]	0.001	0.07 [0.01–0.48]	0.007	0.98 (strong)	2
Presence of psychologist in the center
No	1		1
Yes	0.41 [0.22–0.77]	0.005	8.51 [0.98–73.85]	0.051	0.59 (weak)	6
Number of children
None	1
1–3	2.18 [0.53–8.95]	0.280				7
4–7	4.49 [1.03–19.61]	0.046				7

Open in a new tab

According to the value of the importance weights [26]:

[0–0.5]: no evidence.

[0.5–0.75]: weak evidence.

[0.75–0.90]: positive evidence.

[0.95–0.99]: strong evidence.

[0.99–1]: very strong evidence.

Based on importance weight.

Discussion

This cross-sectional study described an important public health issue in a country where reproductive health and the fight against HIV are the focus of health policy. It is one of the few studies that focused on reproductive health as well as unmet need for limiting childbirth among WLHIV in Togo. Indeed, 40% of participants expressed the desire not to have children any more in the future, but some of them did not use any contraceptive method. In our study, the overall prevalence of unmet need for limiting childbirth was estimated at 9%, which is lower than previously reported in the general population in Togo (12%) [24] as well as that reported in most epidemiological studies of conducted among WLHIV in Sub-Saharan Africa. In a cross-sectional studies among WLHIV, Yotebieng et al in DR Congo and Wanyenze et al in Uganda found respectively that 17.6% and 36.8% of the WLHIV had an unmet need for limiting childbirth [20,27]. However, similar result of 9% was reported in another study among WLHIV attending HIV Care and Treatment Service at Saint Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [28]. Although the prevalence of unmet need for limiting childbirth was low among WLHIV in our study, these results nevertheless suggest that it is very important to implement strategies to address these needs, thereby reducing the risk of MTCT of HIV. To effectively guide the development of these strategies at the level of the study regions, the results of this study among WLHIV allow us to rank the factors associated with unmet need for limiting childbirth according to the importance of weight.

This study found that the age of the participants was the main factor that could influence mostly the prevalence of unmet need for limiting childbirth, with older WLHIV being more likely to have an unmet need to limit childbirth. This is consistent with the findings of a study conducted in HIV clinics at Mulago in Uganda, where WLHIV were about six times more likely to have unmet need for FP [20]. Older WLHIV may probably experience the side effects of contraception use and might be reluctant to use modern contraceptive. In addition, older women may have a lower perception of the risk of pregnancy.

WLHIV attending private HIV clinics were less likely to have unmet needs for limiting childbirth compared to those attending public HIV clinics. Private HIV clinics may provide better reproductive health services, including FP services. They are most often highly motivated to improve client satisfaction by providing integrated reproductive health care, and also work better at retaining patients living with HIV [29]. This result was consistent with that found in a study done in Mexico which reported that women were less likely to have unmet needs for limiting if they had access to private health service [30].

In this study, WLHIV in couple, either married or not, were more likely to report unmet need for limiting childbirth compared to those who were sexually active but not in couple. This result was consistent with studies conducted in Ethiopia [28] which found that WLHIV who were married were higher to report unmet need for limiting childbirth. In addition, similar findings from a study in Zambia and Swaziland [31] reported that WLHIV living in couples were twice as likely to have an unmet need for limiting childbirth. These women may have already the number of children that they wanted and may express their willingness to limit childbearing.

Not surprisingly, WLHIV who have reported moderate or severe symptoms of AIDS are more likely to have an unmet need for limiting childbirth. Indeed, in general, WLHIV who have symptoms of AIDS most often make the priority choice to regain their well-being and relegate to the second plan other health care, including reproductive health care. But WLHIV receiving antiretroviral therapy become more sexually active which could be accompanied by return to fertility [32]. In that context, most of them are reluctant to be pregnant, fearing transmit HIV to their child. In LMIC, where reproductive health services are not often integrated in the basic care in the HIV clinics, WLHIV may have to their demand for reproductive health services not satisfied [33]. However, those with moderate or severe symptoms may need to take additional pills each day for eventually treatment of opportunistic infections or symptomatic relief. Fearing potential drug interactions, clinician delay the use of contraceptive methods, hormonal contraceptives, as much as possible [34].

Finally, it should be noted that there is a disparity of the prevalence of unmet need for limiting childbirth between health regions. We found that WLHIV living in Kara health region were less likely to have unmet need for limiting childbirth compared to those living in Centrale health region. This variability between these two regions could be explained not only by cultural differences but also by the poverty index in these regions. Indeed, the central region is one of the poorest regions of Togo [35] and this could mostly influence the use of modern contraceptive. Similarly, a study conducted in Mexico using national demographic survey found that women living in the poorest region of the country have greater unmet needs for both spacing and limiting than those living in the capital of the country [30].

This study assessed the relative weight of each risk factor on unmet need for limiting childbirth among WLHIV and showed that the women’s age and the type of HIV clinic greatly influenced the prevalence of the unmet need for limiting childbirth. This suggests that, to be effective, interventions to eradicate unmet need for limiting childbirth should target WLHIV aged 35 years and older or those attending public HIV clinics in Togo.

Limitations of study

This study has several limitations. It was conducted in health facilities with a low probability to include WLHIV who were not followed-up or less regularly followed-up in the HIV clinics including in this study. They may have different characteristics. As for with most cross-sectional studies, not only the study sample may not be representative of all the WLHIV residing in Togo, but also it should be noted a possible reverse causality.

Conclusion

This research showed that the prevalence of unmet need for limiting childbirth among WLHIV was relatively low, but heterogeneous across the health regions involved in this study. Older women (aged 35 years and older), those in couple, those attending public HIV clinics, those with moderate or severe symptoms of AIDS, and those residing in the Centrale health region had the highest unmet needs for contraception to limit childbirth. Interventions to improve more access to modern contraception, targeting women aged 35 to 49 years, those in couple or those attending public healthcare facilities would contribute to the eradication of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in Togo.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(223.2KB, pdf)}

S2 Data

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(158.4KB, pdf)}

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank health workers involved in data collection for their contribution. We acknowledge all patients who accepted to participate in this study.

Abbreviations

HIV: Human immunodeficiency virus
AIDS: acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
aPR: adjusted prevalence ratio
ART: Antiretroviral therapy
PLWHA: People Living With HIV and AIDS
WLHIV: women living with HIV
FP: Family planning
MTCT: mother-to-child transmission

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

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

References

1.World Health Organization (WHO). Strategic approaches to the prevention of HIV infection in infants. Report of a WHO meeting, Morges, Switzerland | 20–22 March 2002. [Internet]. WHO. 2003 [cité 16 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/mtct/strategicapproachesfr.pdf
2.World Health Organization (WHO). When women lead, change happens [Internet]. 2017 [cité 16 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2017/when-women-lead-change-happens
3.The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). The disproportionate impact of HIV on women in western and central Africa | UNAIDS [Internet]. 2019 [cité 1 juin 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2019/february/20190225_WCA_women
4.The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Women and HIV—A spotlight on adolescent girls and young women. 2019;20.
5.De Cock KM, Fowler MG, Mercier E, de Vincenzi I, Saba J, Hoff E, et al. Prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission in resource-poor countries: translating research into policy and practice. JAMA. 2000;283:1175‑82. 10.1001/jama.283.9.1175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Drake AL, Wagner A, Richardson B, John-Stewart G. Incident HIV during Pregnancy and Postpartum and Risk of Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001608 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001608 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.World Health Organization (WHO). HIV transmission through breastfeeding: a review of available evidence. 2007 update [Internet]. 2008 [cité 16 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43879
8.Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Start Free Stay Free AIDS Free 2017 progress report [Internet]. Geneva; 2017 p. 84. Disponible sur: https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2923_SFSFAF_2017progressreport_en.pdf
9.AVERT. Prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV [Internet]. AVERT. 2019 [cité 16 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-programming/prevention/prevention-mother-child
10.Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Miles to go—closing gaps, breaking barriers, righting injustices [Internet]. 2018 [cité 16 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2018/global-aids-update
11.Mazzeo CI, Flanagan EH, Bobrow EA, Pitter CS, Marlink R. How the global call for elimination of pediatric HIV can support HIV-positive women to achieve their pregnancy intentions. Reprod Health Matters. 2012;20:90‑102. 10.1016/S0968-8080(12)39636-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Wilcher R, Petruney T, Cates W. The role of family planning in elimination of new pediatric HIV infection. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2013;8:490‑7. 10.1097/COH.0b013e3283632bd7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Peltzer K, Chao L-W, Dana P. Family planning among HIV positive and negative prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) clients in a resource poor setting in South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2009;13:973‑9. 10.1007/s10461-008-9365-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Beyeza-Kashesya J, Kaharuza F, Ekström AM, Neema S, Kulane A, Mirembe F. To use or not to use a condom: a prospective cohort study comparing contraceptive practices among HIV-infected and HIV-negative youth in Uganda. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:144 10.1186/1471-2334-11-144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Salamander T. Building a safe house on firm ground: key findings from a global values and preferences survey regarding the sexual and reproductive health and human rights of women living with HIV [Internet]. WHO; 2014. [cité 17 août 2019]. Disponible sur: http://salamandertrust.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BuildingASafeHouseOnFirmGroundFINALreport190115.pdf [Google Scholar]
16.United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA). Universal Access to Reproductive Health: Progress and Challenges [Internet]. 2016 [cité 17 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/UNFPA_Reproductive_Paper_20160120_online.pdf
17.Iyun V, Brittain K, Phillips TK, le Roux S, McIntyre JA, Zerbe A, et al. Prevalence and determinants of unplanned pregnancy in HIV-positive and HIV-negative pregnant women in Cape Town, South Africa: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2018. [cité 17 août 2019];8. Disponible sur: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5892733/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Mayondi GK, Wirth K, Morroni C, Moyo S, Ajibola G, Diseko M, et al. Unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use, and childbearing desires among HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected women in Botswana: across-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:44 10.1186/s12889-015-2498-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Wanyenze RK, Tumwesigye NM, Kindyomunda R, Beyeza-Kashesya J, Atuyambe L, Kansiime A, et al. Uptake of family planning methods and unplanned pregnancies among HIV-infected individuals: a cross-sectional survey among clients at HIV clinics in Uganda. J Int AIDS Soc. 2011;14:35 10.1186/1758-2652-14-35 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Wanyenze RK, Matovu JKB, Kamya MR, Tumwesigye NM, Nannyonga M, Wagner GJ. Fertility desires and unmet need for family planning among HIV infected individuals in two HIV clinics with differing models of family planning service delivery. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:5 10.1186/s12905-014-0158-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Adair T. Unmet need for contraception among HIV-positive women in Lesotho and implications for mother-to-child transmission. J Biosoc Sci. 2009;41:269‑78. 10.1017/S0021932008003076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Yaya I, Patassi AA, Landoh DE, Bignandi EM, Kolani K, Namoro A-DD, et al. Modern contraceptive use among HIV-infected women attending HIV care centres in Togo: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019006 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Programme National de Lutte contre le Sida et les IST (PNLS-IST. RAPPORT ANNUEL 2015 DES ACTIVITES DU PNLS-IST [Internet]. Lomé: PNLS-IST; 2015 p. 98. Disponible sur: http://www.pnls.tg/rapports/RAPPORT%20ANNUEL%20PNLS%202015.pdf
24.Ministère de la Planification, du Développement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire (MPDAT), Ministère de la Santé (MS), ICF International,. Enquête Démographique et de Santé au Togo 2013–2014 [Internet]. Rockville, Maryland, USA: MPDAT, MS et ICF International; 2015. Disponible sur: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR301/FR301.pdf
25.Roux P, Sagaon-Teyssier L, Lions C, Fugon L, Verger P, Carrieri MP. HCV seropositivity in inmates and in the general population: an averaging approach to establish priority prevention interventions. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005694 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005694 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Viallefont V, Raftery AE, Richardson S. Variable selection and Bayesian model averaging in case-control studies. Stat Med. 2001;20:3215‑30. 10.1002/sim.976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Yotebieng M, Norris A, Chalachala JL, Matumona Y, Ramadhani HO, Behets F. Fertility desires, unmet need for family planning, and unwanted pregnancies among HIV-infected women in care in Kinshasa, DR Congo. Pan Afr Med J. 2015;20:235 10.11604/pamj.2015.20.235.5859 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Abubeker FA, Fanta MB, Dalton VK. Unmet Need for Contraception among HIV-Positive Women Attending HIV Care and Treatment Service at Saint Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Int J Reprod Med. 2019;2019:3276780 10.1155/2019/3276780 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Agha S, Do M. The quality of family planning services and client satisfaction in the public and private sectors in Kenya. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21:87‑96. 10.1093/intqhc/mzp002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Juarez F, Gayet C, Mejia-Pailles G. Factors associated with unmet need for contraception in Mexico: evidence from the National Survey of Demographic Dynamics 2014. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2018. [cité 25 déc 2019];18 Disponible sur: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5921552/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Johnson KB, Akwara P, Rutstein SO, Bernstein S. Fertility preferences and the need for contraception among women living with HIV: the basis for a joint action agenda. AIDS Lond Engl. 2009;23 Suppl 1:S7‑17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Mekonnen B, Minyihun A. Fertility Desire And Associated Factors Among HIV Positive Women Attending ART Clinics In Amhara Region Referral Hospitals In Northwest Ethiopia, 2017. HIVAIDS Auckl NZ. 2019;11:247‑54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Sexual and reproductive health of women living with HIV/AIDS. Guidelines on care, treatment and support for women living with HIV/AIDS and their children in resource-constrained settings. [Internet]. Geneva: WHO & UNFPA; 2006. p. 83 Disponible sur: https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/guidelines/sexualreproductivehealth.pdf [Google Scholar]
34.World Health Organization (WHO). Medical eligibility criteria wheel for contraceptive use [Internet]. WHO. World Health Organization; 2015. Disponible sur: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/family_planning/mec-wheel-5th/en/ [Google Scholar]
35.Ministère de la planification du développement, Institut National de da Statistique et des Etudes Economiques et Démographiques (INSEED). Togo: questionnaire Unifié des Indicateurs de Base du Bien-être (QUIBB), 2015 [Internet]. Lomé: INSEED; 2016 avr p. 174. Disponible sur: http://www.stat-togo.org/contenu/pdf/pb/pb-rap-final-QUIBB-tg-2015.pdf

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233136.r001

Decision Letter 0

Kwasi Torpey

26 Feb 2020

PONE-D-20-01103

Factors associated with unmet need for limiting childbirth among HIV-positive women in Togo: an averaging approach

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Saka,

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 11 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,

Kwasi Torpey, MD PhD MPH

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. 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. If you developed and/or translated 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.

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

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019006

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

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Understanding unmet FP needs of women with HIV+ women is important to understand programmatic gaps, meet women's RH goals, and reduce MTCT. The authors present data from women in Togo on this topic, and identify some gaps. There are some notable methodological issues (namely in the definition of the outcome and in analysis/lack of accounting for clustering) that are important to fully comprehend study results. In addition, the authors could do a better job in the background and discussion describing the rationale for the study (ie many studies have already been conducted, although not in Togo) and synthesize findings in the discussion rather than only repeat findings and compare to the literature.

Abstract and Methods

-Unmet need – did you exclude needs for birth spacing? If so please overtly state in methods. If not, add birth spacing to definition of unmet need.

Background

-The background could be more focused; contraception isn’t mentioned until the 3rd paragraph. Suggest cutting much of 1st 3-4 paragraphs to narrow focus on your topic.

Methods

-The sample was selected at the facility level and then participants within the facility. The authors should account for clustering in all of their analysis.

-Describe the rationale for the AIC/Poisson model; ie how it differs from the multivariate model and why it was done.

-In the analysis of unmet need who is the comparator, women with their FP needs met who desire to not have future children? Or are woman who want to conceive in the comparator? This is an important methodological issue, as if women who want to conceive are in the comparison group than there is a lot of heterogeneity in the comparison group (needs met + desire for future children); these groups are very different.

Results

-Results need more specificity in their description; for example age of patient and type of healthcare facility are associate with unmet need. These are variables but don’t describe the association (ie older age, or younger age?). Suggest cutting these types of statements as later you go on to describe the relationship with age > and < 35.

-“Weak with the health region”unclear sentence.

- Was contraceptive use measured? Among women who had their “needs met” what was the method mix? Women who are not using condoms plus another method (dual method) technically have their FP needs met, with a less effective method. In contrast, women using DMPA have FP needs met but are at risk for HIV transmission and STIs. Would be nice to more comprehensively describe the cohort.

-Did the authors look to see if any of their variables were collinear in the MV model? Ie age and # children?

Discussion

-The authors did not “address” a public health issue as it is just descriptive; suggest rephrasing.

-There are actually several studies on RH and unmet need (the authors cited some in the background but there are many more). Claiming this sis one of a few studies is not accurate.

-The comparison with the Uganda results does not make sense; you are discussing age among HIV+ women whereas the Uganda study was comparing HIV+ to HIV-. This should be removed for comparison or change context to refer to % unmet need among HIV+.

-The marital status findings are mentioned 2X in the discussion, suggest consolidating into one section.

-The interpretation of the women with severe findings is inconsistent with your results. You found women with symptoms were MORE likely to have unmet need, but the following sentence supports these women having LESS unmet need. Please revise accordingly.

Limitations

-You should acknowledge possibility of reverse causality due to the cross-sectional design.

Conclusions

-This seems to repeat the study findings but should describe the “so what” about the research. What are next steps as a result of this research?

Table 1

-Unmet need should be defined, including making it clear who is in the “no” category.

-N for age is not listed

-Can you include partner status, would be helpful to know among those with known partner status if partners are HIV+ vs HIV-

-Why is fertility desire not described for both groups?

-Unmet need should not be in the rows it is the outcome.

The manuscript would benefit from a native English speaker review/copyedit. There are several grammatical errors throughout.

Reviewer #2: Overall comment:

This is an interesting cross-sectional study that examined the prevalence of unmet need for limiting childbirth and associated factors among women living with HIV in Togo. This is an important and timely piece of work conducted at a time when the global community is increasing efforts to close the remaining gaps in prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV programs.

While the study is analytically sound and clearly written, there was some lack of detail and consistency regarding the definition of the outcome and some key variables. The authors should expand the Methods section to include details of appropriate definitions of the outcome and key variables, including questions from which these variables were constructed. Also, I would advise the authors to revise extensively for typos to improve readability of the text.

Abstract and Background:

1. The terms ‘in a relationship’, ‘marital status’ ‘in a couple’ mean different things and have been used interchangeably in the abstract (result and conclusion) and also throughout the paper. The definition of relationship status e.g. cohabiting (married or not) should be clarified and consistently used.

2. Depending on editorial preference, consider using women living with HIV rather than HIV-positive women.

3. Page 3: first sentence in last paragraph is unclear. Rephrase sentence.

4. Page 3, second paragraph line 9: uncap the ‘Sub’ in ‘Sub-Saharan’

Methods:

5. Similar to the varying prevalence of unmet need for limiting childbirth across health regions, I wonder if you could add to your predictors some metric (if you have this in your database) for patients’ ease of accessibility to health facility? For instance, distance to the clinic?

6. Page 6: line 1 and 2 implies a contradiction to the earlier definition of your study population. My understanding based on the inclusion criteria on page 5 is that all women included were sexually active. Clarify.

7. Page 7, first paragraph: Clearly define how you categorized ‘moderate vs. severe’ HIV symptoms.

Results:

8. I wonder if some information on type of contraceptive methods used among those without the outcome can be included. It would be useful to better understand possible targeted interventions to improve unmet needs in the region.

9. For the categorical variable that you created for age, is there a reason why this was not a 3-level variable? Considering the age range of 16-49 in your study sample, I imagine that fertility intentions, contraceptive use and health seeking behaviors might be different for 16-25 year old women compared to those 26-35 years of age.

Discussion:

10. I had some concerns about the potential for under representation of unmet needs for limiting childbirth in your sample, due to the fact that you recruited women who were followed at HIV care sites for at least 6 months, but I think you have addressed this adequately in the limitations.

11. Page 11, Line 2 in Conclusion: a word is missing between ‘health’ and ‘involved’

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 May 20;15(5):e0233136. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233136.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

16 Apr 2020

Authors‘ response

Here is a point-by-point response to the Editor and the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

Editor Comments:

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

Answer: As suggested the editor, we have formatted our manuscript as required.

Answer: Thank you so much, As suggested the editor, we have included the French version of the questionnaire used in the study. We are still working to translate it in English.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence(s) of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019006

Answer: Thank you so much. As suggested the editor, we have cited my previous paper and put overlapping text in quote.

Answer: Here is my ORCID iD : orcid.org/0000-0002-2554-6515

Answer: Thank you for this comment, we included the reference of the table 2 as it is required in the text of our manuscript

We would like to thank the reviewer for careful reading of our manuscript and for the valuable comments, which were of great help in revising in order to improve the quality of this manuscript. Our responses to the reviewer’s comments are given below.

Abstract and Methods

-Unmet need – did you exclude needs for birth spacing? If so please overtly state in methods. If not, add birth spacing to definition of unmet need.

Answer: Thank you for this comment, we did not included needs for birth spacing in the outcome definition (Unmet need for limiting childbirth), so we stated it in the methods, thank you

Background

-The background could be more focused; contraception isn’t mentioned until the 3rd paragraph. Suggest cutting much of 1st 3-4 paragraphs to narrow focus on your topic.

Answer: As suggested the reviewer, we have deleted the first paragraph and we have reorganized the other paragraphs by focusing more on family planning and contraceptive use, thank you

Methods

-The sample was selected at the facility level and then participants within the facility. The authors should account for clustering in all of their analysis.

Answer: Thank you for this comment. In our statistical analysis strategies, we had tried multilevel regression models taking into account the health facilities. However, the variability between health facilities was not significant. So, we had to abandon this analysis strategies.

-Describe the rationale for the AIC/Poisson model; ie how it differs from the multivariate model and why it was done.

Answer: As suggested the reviewer, we describe with more details the rationale in the methods section. So we added in the “Data’s statistical analysis” section the following paragraph: “This process helps not only to select a final model (all the possible models) with Poisson regression procedures, but also to rank the covariates according to their relative importance. It compares the likelihood of an empty model with the likelihood of the model with covariates, provides also the proportion of the variation explained by the specified model. This averaging multimodel approach was described elsewhere [25]”

The multivariable model provided adjusted prevalence ratio, while multimodal averaging helped to rank covariates based on their contribution in explaining the risk of unmet needs for limiting childbirth.

Answer: Thank you for this relevant comment. We agree with the reviewer that the comparison group in our study is very heterogeneous.

Results

-Results need more specificity in their description; for example, age of patient and type of healthcare facility are associate with unmet need. These are variables but don’t describe the association (ie older age, or younger age?). Suggest cutting these types of statements as later you go on to describe the relationship with age > and < 35.

-“Weak with the health region”unclear sentence.

Answer: Thank you for this comment. We correct it, thank you

Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. We added in the Table 1 the description of type of contraception reported by participants. We agree with your comment, that not all methods protect against STIs. But as you will note, about two thirds of participants used condoms and could therefore avoid STIs.

-Did the authors look to see if any of their variables were collinear in the MV model? Ie age and # children?

Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We finally excluded the number of children in the MV model, as these variables are collinear.

Discussion

-The authors did not “address” a public health issue as it is just descriptive; suggest rephrasing.

Answer: we correct it, thank you

-There are actually several studies on RH and unmet need (the authors cited some in the background but there are many more). Claiming this sis one of a few studies is not accurate.

Answer: We agree with this comment. We correct it, we specified that is was related to studies conducted in Togo, we omitted to mention it, thank you

Answer: As suggested the reviewer, we have removed this reference, thank you

-The marital status findings are mentioned 2X in the discussion, suggest consolidating into one section.

Answer: The reviewer has raised an important point here. So, we revised this paragraph in the “Discussion” section as following “Not surprisingly, WLHIV who have reported moderate or severe symptoms of AIDS are more likely to have an unmet need for limiting childbirth. Indeed, in general, WLHIV who have symptoms of AIDS most often make the priority choice to regain their well-being and relegate to the second plan other health care, including reproductive health care. But WLHIV receiving antiretroviral therapy become more sexually active which could be accompanied by return to fertility [32]. In that context, most of them are reluctant to be pregnant, fearing transmit HIV to their child. In LMIC, where reproductive health services are not often integrated in the basic care in the HIV clinics, WLHIV may have to their demand for reproductive health services not satisfied [33]. However, those with moderate or severe symptoms may need to take additional pills each day for eventually treatment of opportunistic infections or symptomatic relief. Fearing potential drug interactions, clinician delay the use of contraceptive methods, hormonal contraceptives, as much as possible [34]”.

Limitations

-You should acknowledge possibility of reverse causality due to the cross-sectional design.

Answer: As suggested the reviewer, we have added a sentence mentioning a possible reverse causality due to the cross-sectional design.

Conclusions

-This seems to repeat the study findings but should describe the “so what” about the research. What are next steps as a result of this research?

Answer: Thank you for this comment. We will disseminate our results to policy decision-makers in order firstly, to convince them to reproduce this study in other regions and secondly translate these results into effective interventions adapted to reduce unmet needs.

Table 1

-Unmet need should be defined, including making it clear who is in the “no” category.

Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. We defined unmet needs for limiting childbirth as the fecund women who were sexually active and intend to stop childbearing (limiting) but were not using any contraceptive method. And furthermore, our main outcome variable was WLHIV who reported unmet needs for limiting childbirth coded 1 (oui) and 0 (non) if else.

-N for age is not listed

Answer: As suggested the reviewer, we included it in the table 1, thank you

-Can you include partner status, would be helpful to know among those with known partner status if partners are HIV+ vs HIV-

Answer: As suggested the reviewer, we included it in the table 1, thank you

-Why is fertility desire not described for both groups?

Answer: the fertility desire is included in the outcome definition, it is why we decided not to include it in the description, thank you

-Unmet need should not be in the rows it is the outcome.

Answer: As suggested the reviewer, we deleted the row containing the outcome, thank you

The manuscript would benefit from a native English speaker review/copyedit. There are several grammatical errors throughout.

Reviewer #2: Overall comment:

Abstract and Background:

Answer : Thank you for this comment. In our study, we have chosen to use the term “In couple” which was define as participant cohabiting with his/her sexual partner. We change it through the text of the manuscript.

2. Depending on editorial preference, consider using women living with HIV rather than HIV-positive women.

Answer : As suggested the reviewer, we have changed it through the whole manuscript

3. Page 3: first sentence in last paragraph is unclear. Rephrase sentence.

Answer : Thank you for this suggestion, we have rephrased the sentence.

4. Page 3, second paragraph line 9: uncap the ‘Sub’ in ‘Sub-Saharan’

Answer : As suggested the reviewer, we have corrected it

Methods:

Answer: Thank so much for this suggestion, we agree the reviewer, these factors could help to improve the explanation of the outcome, but unfortunately, we did not collect them.

Answer: We agree with this comment, we have corrected it, thank you

7. Page 7, first paragraph: Clearly define how you categorized ‘moderate vs. severe’ HIV symptoms.

Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. In our study, to provide information on the intensity of the symptoms; participants were asked to describe the symptoms of HIV through the following question: How do you describe your current HIV symptoms? and we proposed a response with 5 modalities :None = 1; medium = 2; moderate = 3; severe = 4; don't want to answer = 99. In the data analysis, we had combined the modalities 2 and 3 which takes the name of "moderate".

Results:

Answer: As suggested the reviewer, we have added in the Table 1 the description of type of contraception reported by participants. Thank you.

Answer: We agree with these comments. Initially, we create a variable with 3 levels <25; 26-35 and >35 years. However, in the regression models, we found that PR for 16-25 years old women was not statistically different compared to those 26-35 years of age. So, we decided to combine these two categories. Thank you.

Discussion:

Answer: Thank you for mention this.

11. Page 11, Line 2 in Conclusion: a word is missing between ‘health’ and ‘involved’

Answer: we correct it, thank you

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(28.5KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233136.r003

Decision Letter 1

Kwasi Torpey

24 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-01103R1

Factors associated with unmet need for limiting childbirth among women living with HIV in Togo: an averaging approach

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Saka,

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 15th May 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

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

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'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Professor Kwasi Torpey, MD PhD MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thanks. The revised manuscript has improved. However, there are some comments that were not fully addressed

1. Reviewer 1: The comment below by Reviewer 1 and the corresponding response does not address the issue raised. Kindly ensure it is adequately addressed

Answer: Thank you for this relevant comment. We agree with the reviewer that the comparison group in our study is very heterogeneous

2. Copy-editing: The manuscript needs copyediting by native English speaker to address language corrections starting from the abstract then the main paper. See a few a examples (CAPS) in the abstract

Background: With the LARGE access to antiretroviral treatment...….. the subsequent sentence also needs revision

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between June and August 2016, INCLUDING WLHIV of reproductive age (15–49 years), sexually active and followed-up in HIV-care settings in Centrale and Kara regions, in Togo. Data WERE collected on a face-to-face basis - The whole methods section in the abstract needs revision

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

PLoS One. 2020 May 20;15(5):e0233136. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233136.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

27 Apr 2020

"-In the analysis of unmet need who is the comparator, women with their FP needs met who desire to not have future children? Or are woman who want to conceive in the comparator? This is an important methodological issue, as if women who want to conceive are in the comparison group than there is a lot of heterogeneity in the comparison group (needs met + desire for future children); these groups are very different.

Answer: Thank you for this relevant comment. We agree with the reviewer that the comparison group in our study is very heterogeneous. In the comparator group we have women with their FP needs met who desire to not have future children and those who want to conceive."

Copy-editing: The manuscript needs copyediting by native English speaker to address language corrections starting from the abstract then the main paper. See a few a examples (CAPS) in the abstract

Answer: Done

Background: With the LARGE access to antiretroviral treatment...….. the subsequent sentence also needs revision

Answer: Done

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233136.r005

Decision Letter 2

Kwasi Torpey

29 Apr 2020

Factors associated with unmet need for limiting childbirth among women living with HIV in Togo: an averaging approach

PONE-D-20-01103R2

Dear Dr. Saka,

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,

Professor Kwasi Torpey, MD PhD MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233136.r006

Acceptance letter

Kwasi Torpey

8 May 2020

PONE-D-20-01103R2

Factors associated with unmet need for limiting childbirth among women living with HIV in Togo: an averaging approach

Dear Dr. Saka:

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

Professor Kwasi Torpey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

S1 Data

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(223.2KB, pdf)}

S2 Data

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(158.4KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(28.5KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

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

[pone.0233136.ref001] 1.World Health Organization (WHO). Strategic approaches to the prevention of HIV infection in infants. Report of a WHO meeting, Morges, Switzerland | 20–22 March 2002. [Internet]. WHO. 2003 [cité 16 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/mtct/strategicapproachesfr.pdf

[pone.0233136.ref002] 2.World Health Organization (WHO). When women lead, change happens [Internet]. 2017 [cité 16 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2017/when-women-lead-change-happens

[pone.0233136.ref003] 3.The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). The disproportionate impact of HIV on women in western and central Africa | UNAIDS [Internet]. 2019 [cité 1 juin 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2019/february/20190225_WCA_women

[pone.0233136.ref004] 4.The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Women and HIV—A spotlight on adolescent girls and young women. 2019;20.

[pone.0233136.ref005] 5.De Cock KM, Fowler MG, Mercier E, de Vincenzi I, Saba J, Hoff E, et al. Prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission in resource-poor countries: translating research into policy and practice. JAMA. 2000;283:1175‑82. 10.1001/jama.283.9.1175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref006] 6.Drake AL, Wagner A, Richardson B, John-Stewart G. Incident HIV during Pregnancy and Postpartum and Risk of Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001608 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001608 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref007] 7.World Health Organization (WHO). HIV transmission through breastfeeding: a review of available evidence. 2007 update [Internet]. 2008 [cité 16 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43879

[pone.0233136.ref008] 8.Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Start Free Stay Free AIDS Free 2017 progress report [Internet]. Geneva; 2017 p. 84. Disponible sur: https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2923_SFSFAF_2017progressreport_en.pdf

[pone.0233136.ref009] 9.AVERT. Prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV [Internet]. AVERT. 2019 [cité 16 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-programming/prevention/prevention-mother-child

[pone.0233136.ref010] 10.Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Miles to go—closing gaps, breaking barriers, righting injustices [Internet]. 2018 [cité 16 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2018/global-aids-update

[pone.0233136.ref011] 11.Mazzeo CI, Flanagan EH, Bobrow EA, Pitter CS, Marlink R. How the global call for elimination of pediatric HIV can support HIV-positive women to achieve their pregnancy intentions. Reprod Health Matters. 2012;20:90‑102. 10.1016/S0968-8080(12)39636-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref012] 12.Wilcher R, Petruney T, Cates W. The role of family planning in elimination of new pediatric HIV infection. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2013;8:490‑7. 10.1097/COH.0b013e3283632bd7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref013] 13.Peltzer K, Chao L-W, Dana P. Family planning among HIV positive and negative prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) clients in a resource poor setting in South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2009;13:973‑9. 10.1007/s10461-008-9365-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref014] 14.Beyeza-Kashesya J, Kaharuza F, Ekström AM, Neema S, Kulane A, Mirembe F. To use or not to use a condom: a prospective cohort study comparing contraceptive practices among HIV-infected and HIV-negative youth in Uganda. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:144 10.1186/1471-2334-11-144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref015] 15.Salamander T. Building a safe house on firm ground: key findings from a global values and preferences survey regarding the sexual and reproductive health and human rights of women living with HIV [Internet]. WHO; 2014. [cité 17 août 2019]. Disponible sur: http://salamandertrust.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BuildingASafeHouseOnFirmGroundFINALreport190115.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref016] 16.United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA). Universal Access to Reproductive Health: Progress and Challenges [Internet]. 2016 [cité 17 août 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/UNFPA_Reproductive_Paper_20160120_online.pdf

[pone.0233136.ref017] 17.Iyun V, Brittain K, Phillips TK, le Roux S, McIntyre JA, Zerbe A, et al. Prevalence and determinants of unplanned pregnancy in HIV-positive and HIV-negative pregnant women in Cape Town, South Africa: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2018. [cité 17 août 2019];8. Disponible sur: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5892733/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref018] 18.Mayondi GK, Wirth K, Morroni C, Moyo S, Ajibola G, Diseko M, et al. Unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use, and childbearing desires among HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected women in Botswana: across-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:44 10.1186/s12889-015-2498-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref019] 19.Wanyenze RK, Tumwesigye NM, Kindyomunda R, Beyeza-Kashesya J, Atuyambe L, Kansiime A, et al. Uptake of family planning methods and unplanned pregnancies among HIV-infected individuals: a cross-sectional survey among clients at HIV clinics in Uganda. J Int AIDS Soc. 2011;14:35 10.1186/1758-2652-14-35 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref020] 20.Wanyenze RK, Matovu JKB, Kamya MR, Tumwesigye NM, Nannyonga M, Wagner GJ. Fertility desires and unmet need for family planning among HIV infected individuals in two HIV clinics with differing models of family planning service delivery. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:5 10.1186/s12905-014-0158-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref021] 21.Adair T. Unmet need for contraception among HIV-positive women in Lesotho and implications for mother-to-child transmission. J Biosoc Sci. 2009;41:269‑78. 10.1017/S0021932008003076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref022] 22.Yaya I, Patassi AA, Landoh DE, Bignandi EM, Kolani K, Namoro A-DD, et al. Modern contraceptive use among HIV-infected women attending HIV care centres in Togo: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019006 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref023] 23.Programme National de Lutte contre le Sida et les IST (PNLS-IST. RAPPORT ANNUEL 2015 DES ACTIVITES DU PNLS-IST [Internet]. Lomé: PNLS-IST; 2015 p. 98. Disponible sur: http://www.pnls.tg/rapports/RAPPORT%20ANNUEL%20PNLS%202015.pdf

[pone.0233136.ref024] 24.Ministère de la Planification, du Développement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire (MPDAT), Ministère de la Santé (MS), ICF International,. Enquête Démographique et de Santé au Togo 2013–2014 [Internet]. Rockville, Maryland, USA: MPDAT, MS et ICF International; 2015. Disponible sur: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR301/FR301.pdf

[pone.0233136.ref025] 25.Roux P, Sagaon-Teyssier L, Lions C, Fugon L, Verger P, Carrieri MP. HCV seropositivity in inmates and in the general population: an averaging approach to establish priority prevention interventions. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005694 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005694 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref026] 26.Viallefont V, Raftery AE, Richardson S. Variable selection and Bayesian model averaging in case-control studies. Stat Med. 2001;20:3215‑30. 10.1002/sim.976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref027] 27.Yotebieng M, Norris A, Chalachala JL, Matumona Y, Ramadhani HO, Behets F. Fertility desires, unmet need for family planning, and unwanted pregnancies among HIV-infected women in care in Kinshasa, DR Congo. Pan Afr Med J. 2015;20:235 10.11604/pamj.2015.20.235.5859 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref028] 28.Abubeker FA, Fanta MB, Dalton VK. Unmet Need for Contraception among HIV-Positive Women Attending HIV Care and Treatment Service at Saint Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Int J Reprod Med. 2019;2019:3276780 10.1155/2019/3276780 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref029] 29.Agha S, Do M. The quality of family planning services and client satisfaction in the public and private sectors in Kenya. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21:87‑96. 10.1093/intqhc/mzp002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref030] 30.Juarez F, Gayet C, Mejia-Pailles G. Factors associated with unmet need for contraception in Mexico: evidence from the National Survey of Demographic Dynamics 2014. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2018. [cité 25 déc 2019];18 Disponible sur: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5921552/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref031] 31.Johnson KB, Akwara P, Rutstein SO, Bernstein S. Fertility preferences and the need for contraception among women living with HIV: the basis for a joint action agenda. AIDS Lond Engl. 2009;23 Suppl 1:S7‑17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref032] 32.Mekonnen B, Minyihun A. Fertility Desire And Associated Factors Among HIV Positive Women Attending ART Clinics In Amhara Region Referral Hospitals In Northwest Ethiopia, 2017. HIVAIDS Auckl NZ. 2019;11:247‑54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref033] 33.World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Sexual and reproductive health of women living with HIV/AIDS. Guidelines on care, treatment and support for women living with HIV/AIDS and their children in resource-constrained settings. [Internet]. Geneva: WHO & UNFPA; 2006. p. 83 Disponible sur: https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/guidelines/sexualreproductivehealth.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref034] 34.World Health Organization (WHO). Medical eligibility criteria wheel for contraceptive use [Internet]. WHO. World Health Organization; 2015. Disponible sur: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/family_planning/mec-wheel-5th/en/ [Google Scholar]

[pone.0233136.ref035] 35.Ministère de la planification du développement, Institut National de da Statistique et des Etudes Economiques et Démographiques (INSEED). Togo: questionnaire Unifié des Indicateurs de Base du Bien-être (QUIBB), 2015 [Internet]. Lomé: INSEED; 2016 avr p. 174. Disponible sur: http://www.stat-togo.org/contenu/pdf/pb/pb-rap-final-QUIBB-tg-2015.pdf

PERMALINK

Factors associated with unmet need for limiting childbirth among women living with HIV in Togo: An averaging approach

Issifou Yaya

Aboubakari Nambiema

Sokhna Dieng

Lihanimpo Djalogue

Mawuényégan Kouamivi Agboyibor

Mathias Kouamé N’Dri

Takiyatou Baba-Toherou

Akouda Akessiwe Patassi

Dadja Essoya Landoh

Kanfitine Kolani

Abdoul-Samadou Aboubakari

Bayaki Saka

Roles

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Background

Methods

Study design

Setting and study population

Sampling

Data collection

Data’s statistical analysis

Ethical issues

Results

Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics

Table 1. Characteristics of the study participants (WLHI, N = 443).

Unmet needs for limiting childbirth

Factors associated with unmet needs for limiting childbirth

Table 2. Factors associated with unmet needs for limiting childbirth (multi-model averaging, N = 443).

Discussion

Limitations of study

Conclusion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Kwasi Torpey

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Kwasi Torpey

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Kwasi Torpey

Roles

Acceptance letter

Kwasi Torpey

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases